Entitlement what can we do about it.

[D.P.]

I would be very concerned about a work environment that clearly lacked diversity. At best it would not be a very interesting place to work, but mostly it would indicate some inherent managerial problems .

As for people saying the 'best' candidate should get the job, they have clearly no idea how to hire people and build effective teams. There is no such thing as best. There are dozens of dimensions to qualify people on, and all you can tell in interviews are rough estimates. Everyone has strengths and weakness. The goal is to find someone who can function in their role and can strengthen the team. Diversity is well proven to improve team performance , so that trait alone adds huge value if your team is not already diverse. You should never be ranking candidates as that can lead to all kinds of biases and leads to selection on criteria that are not actually useful to the company or team.

 

[fez]

I would be very concerned about a work environment that clearly lacked diversity. At best it would not be a very interesting place to work, but mostly it would indicate some inherent managerial problems .

As for people saying the 'best' candidate should get the job, they have clearly no idea how to hire people and build effective teams. There is no such thing as best. There are dozens of dimensions to qualify people on, and all you can tell in interviews are rough estimates. Everyone has strengths and weakness. The goal is to find someone who can function in their role and can strengthen the team. Diversity is well proven to improve team performance , so that trait alone adds huge value if your team is not already diverse. You should never be ranking candidates as that can lead to all kinds of biases and leads to selection on criteria that are not actually useful to the company or team.

This all depends on where you are hiring. In the NHS you cannot be seen to hire based on gender or ethnicity. They interview, score people based on their answers and hire accordingly. My partner says they have clearly not hired the best person for the job a number of times because they cannot let silly things like personality, known work ethic issues or team dynamics come into it.

I understand what you are saying which is "the best person for the job doesn't just mean the person who is best at the job" but diversity for the sake of it is not good. I think a lot of people who are London based are utterly biased as well. They think that everywhere is like London. It isn't. I lived in Norwich for years and if every company wanted to hire people who weren't white they would be fighting over them.

Diversity of thought and personality isn't a bad thing. Diversity purely based on gender or ethnicity alone is silly. The ironic thing is that its never seen as a bad thing for a workplace to be full of women or people of colour, its only ever bad if its all white men. Diversity in its current guise is rather silly.

 

[bigmike20vt]

You don't need to go to university, it was a big con to lower unemployment figures the vast majority of degrees are useless and devalues them. Some are with having but there are a lot at just honestly not be worth it

utter nonsense. The job I started back in 1998 had *just* become graduate only.... before then it was possible to get promoted into it through working from the bottom up so your view may have had some merit then. 25 years on the equivalent job (because my exact job does not exist now) not only is a degree an absolute minimum - unless you are bringing a number of years experience or skills outside of a BSc hons , you are probably not getting that job now without a PHD or maybe a masters.

for some jobs it is insane, and you should not need a degree for, or anything really... .really for instance to be a postman all you need is local knowledge and the ability to drive a car (and be able to read), but i bet if a local person with no qualifications at all applied they would be ignored.

this notion of having a good work eithic combined with a "can do" attitude will get your foot in the door *in general* went out last century imo. without some qualifications most skilled positions wont even give you a look in.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

An interesting thread with some good points.

I graduated in 2016 with a degree in Automotive engineering and got onto the Triumph Motorcycle's grad scheme which paid £29,000 at the time. The inflation calculator puts that at £35,000 in today's money. As another user identified earlier in the thread their expectations are not far fetched. The UK could find itself suffering a brain drain if it's not careful. We have a few examples in this thread.

The more interesting/important question then becomes how much extra pay has my experience actually got me? And does keeping grad pay low, work as a way of artificially making more experienced workers seem like they are being paid their "worth", when in reality they are not actually being properly valued.


I think the grad scheme now pays £32,000, so my pay has gone up by 25% due to experience. If the grad scheme had kept pace with inflation it would have only been 14%. Considering that my current role underpays me especially for the area it is located, that doesn't look too great.

What I would like to know, is why companies are able to pay more in different countries, but seem to struggle to find money to pay people in the UK?

 

[jon86]

What I would like to know, is why companies are able to pay more in different countries, but seem to struggle to find money to pay people in the UK?

You are paid what it costs to replace you, and if the local / country-wide market cost for your skills is only £X, that's all you're typically going to get.

I realised in the 2000s that I needed to emigrate in order to find a much higher country-wide market value for my skills, which I found in the USA.

 

[dowie]

Last week however we got some school people in to show them around. One person wanted to know why there were not more women....and the other wanted to know how we supported allies..... we were gobsmacked that was their take away. Quite depressing really. Two of them however were really intrigued asked right questions, great appetite etc. I will hopefully find them internship roles at some point. (Better not mention salary or some people would throw a fit lol).

So yeah it's definitely a growing problem.

Yeah, identity politics is currently popular yet it tends to only be focused on certain roles, that "bin men"/refuse collectors are normally men or NBA players are overwhelmingly black isn't something commented on save for it being raised as a standard counterpoint.

It's perhaps worse in the US, in the UK we still have, in theory, anti-discrimination laws though we do allow for some discrimination in the case of a tiebreaker situation (two candidates judged to be otherwise equivalent can allow for a diversity factor to be considered re: which to hire*) and some training schemes.

The important question should be whether the hiring process is fair, does the make-up of the current staff reflect some discrimination or bias in the hiring process/company or is it just the natural result of people's interests, the association of the founders etc. forced diversity/tokenism for the sake of it is dumb and unethical, addressing bias and discrimination is both sensible and morally right. The problem is in large companies the solution to any perceived diversity issue seems to be tokenism/forced diversity albeit with some caveats - like the diversity scheme will filter candidates into the less important roles as they don't really want to risk too much hiring a bunch of tokens anywhere close to the money.

*This can be fudged, in some processes you might have a mostly objective bar which candidates must pass, for other roles you might have some looser criteria, be open to a range of people and could make things a bit more subjective. One problem can arise if you subjectively change the value of things after the fact simply as a tool to justify hiring the type of "diverse" candidate you want; a diverse candidate scores better for X, Y Z, qualities/attributes vs other candidates so you argue post facto that those are the good qualities needed for the role.

Another thing can be playing loose with the objective comparison; both candidates have a 2:1 so are considered equivalent... even though one has say a 2:1 from LSE and another has a 2:1 from the University of Skegness. You have an internal pass/fail (do not hire if fail!) hiring test, pass mark is 50/100, one candidate gets 51 another gets 70... they both got a "pass" grade in the test, therefore they're the same on that criteria etc.. end result:

At least 2:1; check

Passed the test; check

Both interviews had "good" feedback; check.

Damn, we can't differentiate between these two candidates, they both tick all the boxes, we'll use diversity as a tiebreaker.

 

[Werewolf]

An interviewee who asked why there weren't more women in the firm would ring alarm bells, in regard to them being a potential troublemaker. They would be off the list before they left their chair, if it was my company. I wouldn't be questioned over my recruitment policies by someone in a job interview.

The fact a company doesn't have many women working for it can be an absolutely massive red flag for the companies culture and practices which is why people will ask, especially if the candidate is a woman.

But yes asking the question why a company is heavily skewed demographically indicates that the candidate is the problem, not that the company may at the minimum have a bit of an image problem (if not a full on problem with the behaviour of it's management that is actively suppressing it's potential by driving off good employees of both genders).

 

[V F]

This all depends on where you are hiring. In the NHS you cannot be seen to hire based on gender or ethnicity. They interview, score people based on their answers and hire accordingly. My partner says they have clearly not hired the best person for the job a number of times because they cannot let silly things like personality, known work ethic issues or team dynamics come into it.

I understand what you are saying which is "the best person for the job doesn't just mean the person who is best at the job" but diversity for the sake of it is not good. I think a lot of people who are London based are utterly biased as well. They think that everywhere is like London. It isn't. I lived in Norwich for years and if every company wanted to hire people who weren't white they would be fighting over them.

Diversity of thought and personality isn't a bad thing. Diversity purely based on gender or ethnicity alone is silly. The ironic thing is that its never seen as a bad thing for a workplace to be full of women or people of colour, its only ever bad if its all white men. Diversity in its current guise is rather silly.

That's why looking around so many things are an utter mess. Nothing feels even close to the thought of being efficient. Unless you're in the really top hospitals with private care and who you are.

Even today for dentists, I remember 3 years ago after getting a checkup and scans you could be in within the same week and have your operations done. Now, you've to wait 3 - 4 weeks for one part of it. Everything feels so broken and underfunded today.

 

[Chris Wilson]

The fact a company doesn't have many women working for it can be an absolutely massive red flag for the companies culture and practices which is why people will ask, especially if the candidate is a woman.

But yes asking the question why a company is heavily skewed demographically indicates that the candidate is the problem, not that the company may at the minimum have a bit of an image problem (if not a full on problem with the behaviour of it's management that is actively suppressing it's potential by driving off good employees of both genders).

It's fantastic if those with interests in pursuing politically correct agendas ask such questions in a job interview (from the potential employer's point of view) as it comes as a free warning of where things may go if they give that person a job in their company. Of course there will be self flagellating employers who actively embrace disruption from hormonal cycles, time off for childbirth, menopausal mental gymnastics and specious claims of sexual impropriety.

It's hard to ask a potential employee how they view diversity and political correctness as they will almost certainly answer in a supportive manner, when in fact they may be just the person you are looking for, one with scant regard for how many ethnics, women or transgenders are employed, what the bloke working next to them thinks of whatever contentious matter is of the moment, and is more interested in getting on with what they are being paid to do and minding their own damn business.

The ones that ask such questions are a gift to an interviewer, (and only just short of the interviewee carrying a copy of the Socialist Worker and Solidarity under each arm), who is wanting to avoid any potential unrest

 

[fez]

The fact a company doesn't have many women working for it can be an absolutely massive red flag for the companies culture and practices which is why people will ask, especially if the candidate is a woman.

But yes asking the question why a company is heavily skewed demographically indicates that the candidate is the problem, not that the company may at the minimum have a bit of an image problem (if not a full on problem with the behaviour of it's management that is actively suppressing it's potential by driving off good employees of both genders).

What about if a company was mainly non white women? Would you be asking that same question to them in an interview?

I think peoples issue is largely that if someones only/main concern about the place they are going to work for a large chunk of their time is how diverse it is then that does raise some flags. If its just another question out of many then fair enough.

There are people who want to see diversity as a natural progression of society and those who want to see it mandated and forced despite the fact the UK is still overwhelmingly white. The same people who will never be happy until they see a majority non-white non-male workforce at a company.

I agree that coming in and seeing what should be a workforce with a mix of men and women of all races and seeing all white men should ring alarm bells. As much as coming in and seeing the complete opposite.

As with all things. There is no absolute rule on what is OK and what isn't.

 

[Tired9]

Nobody else find it strange that this thread is full of "Employers"?

Where is the joe that is not in this position in this thread?

 

[Tired9]

An interesting thread with some good points.

I graduated in 2016 with a degree in Automotive engineering and got onto the Triumph Motorcycle's grad scheme which paid £29,000 at the time. The inflation calculator puts that at £35,000 in today's money. As another user identified earlier in the thread their expectations are not far fetched. The UK could find itself suffering a brain drain if it's not careful. We have a few examples in this thread.

The more interesting/important question then becomes how much extra pay has my experience actually got me? And does keeping grad pay low, work as a way of artificially making more experienced workers seem like they are being paid their "worth", when in reality they are not actually being properly valued.


I think the grad scheme now pays £32,000, so my pay has gone up by 25% due to experience. If the grad scheme had kept pace with inflation it would have only been 14%. Considering that my current role underpays me especially for the area it is located, that doesn't look too great.

What I would like to know, is why companies are able to pay more in different countries, but seem to struggle to find money to pay people in the UK?

The reason I am leaving for Canada is for employment, I also managed to meet a woman there too so will be settling.
CISCO.

 

[platypus]

Exactly this...

I've conducted probably 300+ interviews for senior management roles in a FTSE 100 company during my time; and have now done so several times for my own small company.

I would view a candidate asking any kind of potentially challenging or uncomfortable question as a very good thing; and this question in particular would serve them well.

I suppose I can understand people's reservations about being asked that sort of question if you're interviewing for a low level position in a tiny company, but for senior management or regional director level roles, or if you're identifying graduates for potential fast-tracking, then you absolutely want people to show that they're prepared to be critical of current practices, challenge the status quo, and be able to identify opportunities.

For those sorts of roles the absolute last thing you want to be doing is filling the position with a drone who just wants to go along with the flow. Anyone interviewing at that level should be well aware that diverse workforces produce significantly better results by pretty much every metric, and if they're going to be taking on a leadership role that puts them at the helm of 300+ other employees, then these are things that they absolutely should be considering.

I want to hire people who can do their job better than me, so if they're incapable of being critical of the business or it's current operation, or are not able to indicate as such in their interview, then why would I want to hire them?

An interviewee who asked why there weren't more women in the firm would ring alarm bells, in regard to them being a potential troublemaker. They would be off the list before they left their chair, if it was my company. I wouldn't be questioned over my recruitment policies by someone in a job interview.

I know who I'd rather work for. Someone who values critical, outside of the box thinking, or someone who feels threatened by someone asking questions about recruitment policies because they might be a troublemaker.

Simple choice really.

If someone asks "why aren't there any more women" and can't follow it up with any demonstrable critical thinking, fair enough. But discounting them out of hand, or having it ring alarm bells? Preposterous.

 

[Tired9]

This all depends on where you are hiring. In the NHS you cannot be seen to hire based on gender or ethnicity. They interview, score people based on their answers and hire accordingly. My partner says they have clearly not hired the best person for the job a number of times because they cannot let silly things like personality, known work ethic issues or team dynamics come into it.

I understand what you are saying which is "the best person for the job doesn't just mean the person who is best at the job" but diversity for the sake of it is not good. I think a lot of people who are London based are utterly biased as well. They think that everywhere is like London. It isn't. I lived in Norwich for years and if every company wanted to hire people who weren't white they would be fighting over them.

Diversity of thought and personality isn't a bad thing. Diversity purely based on gender or ethnicity alone is silly. The ironic thing is that its never seen as a bad thing for a workplace to be full of women or people of colour, its only ever bad if its all white men. Diversity in its current guise is rather silly.

Our team is diverse at work, so diverse we have a perpetually depressed female who has gone through rough times and not come through the other side and depends on people for emotional supports, me included. And another who is a bit doo lally.
This all as a chef... but in all fairness I quite like it because we all rotate on shifts and are never wit the same people all the time.

 

[Tired9]

I know who I'd rather work for. Someone who values critical, outside of the box thinking, or someone who feels threatened by someone asking questions about recruitment policies because they might be a troublemaker.

Simple choice really.

If someone asks "why aren't there any more women" and can't follow it up with any demonstrable use, fair enough. But discounting them out of hand, or having it ring alarm bells? Preposterous.

It's almost comical that these prats think of themselves as intelligent when all they do is stifle creativity and progression with their own version of bias and fixed mindedness, not all people's questions are based on SJW BS.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Nobody else find it strange that this thread is full of "Employers"?

Where is the joe that is not in this position in this thread?

i am well down the pecking order in our place - despite having decades of experience - it is on point actually as one of the main reasons is because of the glass ceiling i am in due to no PHD

That said, I cant gumble too much, personally i am not really motivated by money, i have enough to pay the bills, live how i want to live and put some aside for a rainy day which already puts me in a better positon than most. Also we have no main breadwinner in our home - actually my wife just got a big payrise so actually i guess we do now........ and it isnt me.

but I put more value in work life balance and job satisfaction than i do money.... (but then so do the people above me so it does still rankle a little out of principle).

 

[Tired9]

i am well down the pecking order in our place - despite having decades of experience - it is on point actually as one of the main reasons is because of the glass ceiling i am in due to no PHD

That's fair enough though. I mean the PHD means somone spent time and effort to memorize information to gain a piece of paper with perhaps a test to test the ability of making said information work to the order they want it in.

The thing is not all people are made for this kind of route and experience will always trump a peice of paper, don't tell them this though as they think they are entitled to it and they look down on those not stupid enough to pay for something so worthless.

People create worth and worth is arbituariliy judged.

Not logical and not at all objective.

It's just the basic instincts of animals, we as humans are no different to animals.

I am sorry you are stuck, but are you ok with that?

 

[Tired9]

Because it shows that they have no interest in what's actually important, i.e. the business.

The business has never been in anyones favor but to be successful and make money off of people.
Why would anyone show interest in the business part it's self?

I am here to make money because life dictates I must do that, apparently you don't find truth endearing do you?

 

[bigmike20vt]

That's fair enough though. I mean the PHD means somone spent time and effort to memorize information to gain a piece of paper with perhaps a test to test the ability of making said information work to the order they want it in.

The thing is not all people are made for this kind of route and experience will always trump a peice of paper, don't tell them this though as they think they are entitled to it and they look down on those not stupid enough to pay for something so worthless.

People create worth and worth is arbituariliy judged.

Not logical and not at all objective.

It's just the basic instincts of animals, we as humans are no different to animals.

I am sorry you are stuck, but are you ok with that?

I see your point, and not belittling a PHD....... but at some point really you would think job experience would also count..... when a new recruit out of uni mid 20s automatically goes in a band higher than i am in (i am at the max band for not having a PHD) and I am asked to train them to do exactly the same job I do it does not seem fair to me.

I dont blame the recruit, the system does suck a bit however. But that said covid made me re-evaluate. I bought it up in my appraisal as well (didnt go down well). I put my cards on the table, showed my role profile, showed the one in the band above me and asked where i was failing to tick the boxes in the one above. No where.

Bottom line i am not getting promoted, but the role profile is a minimum expectation and i am expected to do more than that. I basically said i was done pushing myself. i would carry on taking pride in my work, and would go above and beyond......... when it interested me, but i was no longer going to go above and beyond as default as i got sod all thanks for it. It got a bit heated and i was told to watch my attitude..... (i dont like appraisals). i was also reminded that my contract is up at the end of Jan and was i hoping for it to be renewed. I am a cheap date, if there is any advantage to being where i am it is that they get good V4M out of me so am hoping they dont decide to get rid but if they do they do.

 

[chroniclard]

Our IT team is quite diverse, one fat guy, one thin guy, one polish lady, one n00b out of uni, one guy who drives a M135i and one handsome middle aged guy(me ofc).