 |
| Is this how we should conduct interviews? |
SFGate's recent article,
Gender gap? Tech could take a cue from orchestras, highlights parallels between orchestras in the 1970s and the tech industry. The similarities are eerie. In the 1970s, women were widely considered unsuited to performance at the top levels of orchestra. Women just didn't get music, or didn't want to devote their lives to it, or something.... It was rare to see a woman in an orchestra playing anything but a harp. In fact, only 5% of the top symphonies' performers were female. But now the gender gap has shrunk substantially - those orchestras are now 40% female.
How did they do it? Blind auditions. Candidates were behind a screen while demonstrating their skills, such that the judging panel had no idea who the candidate was or what they looked like. Can the tech industry accomplish the same thing with gender-blind interviews? Sounds simple enough. Would that work for tech? Probably not, for two reasons.
1) Interviews tend to be less of a technical exam and more of a real-time interaction between interviewer and interviewee to get a sense of the applicant's problem-solving and communication skills. To truly mask the candidates gender, you'd have to prohibit the candidate from speaking, which would make communication much more difficult. At least until we have
surrogates or
scramble suits that mask our true identity in the workplace while allowing us to communicate and interact naturally, we won't be able to judge a candidates aptitude without learning their gender.
2) It seems that candidates are getting excluded before the interview stage. Based on my experience and that of many of my friends throughout the industry, we rarely see women interviewing, even adjusting for the gender imbalance in STEM education. So we probably need to address whatever is blocking the pipeline before radically reforming the hiring process.
So what can we do? I have a few thoughts:
Mask applicants' gender where we can. There's no reason to see gender-identifying information at the initial resume screen, nor when looking at writing or code samples. An organization committed to leveling the playing field should consider masking names and other information that would tend to reveal gender, race, ethnicity, or national origin in the early stages of review.
Convince women to apply. Studies show that women don't apply for jobs at the rate that men do. Women tend to select out of the application process unless they meet nearly 100% of the job criteria, while men are willing to apply with only 60% of the criteria. This fact needs to be repeated over and over again until women (myself included) actually come to terms with the fact that we don't need to reject ourselves before we apply.
Bridge the confidence gap in resume writing. Women's resumes tend to be substantially less strong than men's. That's because we tend to claim less of the credit for our accomplishments and use less-active verbs to describe our roles. We "help" or "work with" or "assist." Men "develop" and "lead" and "direct." This is even true when describing the exact same task.
Ensure interviewers are aware of their own cultural blind spots. When we do get to the non-gender-blind interview, we need to be aware of the subtle biases we all have.
Cultural blind spots inadvertently exclude excellent candidates because they don't have the same hobbies, interests, and backgrounds as the main team. This excludes not only women, but men who don't fit the exact image of the team - too old, from a different socioeconomic background, of a different race or national origin than the more common in the field. Companies should take care to train those who play a role in selected candidates to be aware of their own biases.
Those are my thoughts - but I'd love to read yours in the comments.
But I do think there is a place for science specialists to enhance the regular curriculum. I remember in 3rd or 4th grade, we had a scientist who was the parent of a kid in another class come in once every two weeks for a special science lesson. These were highly interactive, visual, and fun. We built electro-magnets, saw chemical reactions, and had other demonstrations of the type you'd see on Mr. Wizard's World (pictured left). If the purpose of the science specialist is to make science more fun, rather than to teach the core science curriculum, then I think it's a great idea.
