Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the doing-science dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

A measure aimed at boosting female employment in the workforce may actually be making it worse, a major study has found.

Leaders of the Australian public service will today be told to "hit pause" on blind recruitment trials, which many believed would increase the number of women in senior positions. Blind recruitment means recruiters cannot tell the gender of candidates because those details are removed from applications. It is seen as an alternative to gender quotas and has also been embraced by Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Victoria Police and Westpac Bank.

In a bid to eliminate sexism, thousands of public servants have been told to pick recruits who have had all mention of their gender and ethnic background stripped from their CVs. The assumption behind the trial is that management will hire more women when they can only consider the professional merits of candidates. Their choices have been monitored by behavioural economists in the Prime Minister's department — colloquially known as "the nudge unit".

Professor Michael Hiscox, a Harvard academic who oversaw the trial, said he was shocked by the results and has urged caution. "We anticipated this would have a positive impact on diversity — making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist," he said. "We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @11:43AM

    Well, $bud_o_mine pulls in over $50K/yr while $evil_cunt_ex sits on her ass. His child support is less than $200/mo though (It'd be quite a bit more if they didn't have a 50/50 time with the kids split). Judge ruled that since she chose to quit her $40K/yr job to be a stay-at-home mom, child support would be calculated as if her income were $40K/yr.

    That seemed a pretty logical and reasonable way to value her input to me but it's not going to be applicable to every situation.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3