Discriminate against... a personality that will negatively impact the team dynamics? It's not that easy, to be honest, as every team has its own requirements.
A stereotypical Asian interviewing a stereotypical German might find the German rude in some interactions. While another German interviewer would find it being frank.
Interviews based on personal feelings have hidden biases not even the interviewer is aware of.
Here's another question - stereotypical Japanese interviewer, interviewing, back-to-back, a stereotypical Indian and a stereotypical German for the role. Both are capable and equally technically proficient. How do you choose, other than looking at the team you're hiring for, and thinking how the person would fit in?
You just send out a generic decline, and document it as there's a better candidate fit for the role.
I'm not sure if you guys have been in charge of hiring, but there's no real alternative. In my most recent experience, we had one open position, and after interviewing 10 candidates, 3 of them were basically identical in terms of technical qualifications. How do you choose one over the other, other than the "vibes"? Anyone suggesting otherwise is either living in a weird alternate reality, or doesn't want to accept that working is a cooperative job and interpersonal relationships are very important.
There always will be exceptions for different type of roles and specializations, but that's not what I'm talking about.
If the candidate is a protected class and they are rejected for "cultural fit" it will be an easy case for EEOC to raise a discrimination case.
This is effectively how Harvard was rejecting Asian applicants. They created a "personal fit" / cultural fit quality that Asians scored low on . Supreme Court found this to be discrimination.
It doesn't matter if you are truly discriminating, it matters how well you have tangible evidence of the employee not meeting the qualifications for the role.
Discriminate against... a personality that will negatively impact the team dynamics? It's not that easy, to be honest, as every team has its own requirements.
A stereotypical Asian interviewing a stereotypical German might find the German rude in some interactions. While another German interviewer would find it being frank.
Interviews based on personal feelings have hidden biases not even the interviewer is aware of.
Here's another question - stereotypical Japanese interviewer, interviewing, back-to-back, a stereotypical Indian and a stereotypical German for the role. Both are capable and equally technically proficient. How do you choose, other than looking at the team you're hiring for, and thinking how the person would fit in?
would you be able to document this negative fit in an impartial way when rejecting a protected class?
You just send out a generic decline, and document it as there's a better candidate fit for the role.
I'm not sure if you guys have been in charge of hiring, but there's no real alternative. In my most recent experience, we had one open position, and after interviewing 10 candidates, 3 of them were basically identical in terms of technical qualifications. How do you choose one over the other, other than the "vibes"? Anyone suggesting otherwise is either living in a weird alternate reality, or doesn't want to accept that working is a cooperative job and interpersonal relationships are very important.
There always will be exceptions for different type of roles and specializations, but that's not what I'm talking about.
4 replies →
> would you be able to document this negative fit in an impartial way when rejecting a protected class?
Likely. But haters gonna hate, and lawyers gonna sue.
Is that discrimination? Somebody can en an annoying prick regardless of their background.
If the candidate is a protected class and they are rejected for "cultural fit" it will be an easy case for EEOC to raise a discrimination case.
This is effectively how Harvard was rejecting Asian applicants. They created a "personal fit" / cultural fit quality that Asians scored low on . Supreme Court found this to be discrimination.
It doesn't matter if you are truly discriminating, it matters how well you have tangible evidence of the employee not meeting the qualifications for the role.