An employer will see a lot more candidates than someone applying for positions I world have thought.
Yes, that's what I said. Hence why there are more employers in this thread...
An employer will see a lot more candidates than someone applying for positions I world have thought.
It's not and I don't stand for it.It's ok though as racism is only recognised one way.
So that answer is due to the expressed entitlement of employers, it's rich is it not to blame others when you sit on the helm of it yourselves?
It's got nothing to do with the employer beibg entitled as many of those in here are arguing against it, as employers.
Top tier.
Yes such as you employers sitting on a pedastal.He has this weird thing where he claims to be mega intelligent but then neglects to notice or provide key details.
Using one example to understanding entitlement, when in truth you are all entitled people in varying ways, hypocrisy at it's finest.It's a problem I've come across recently, particularly when recruiting. Looking for a graduate engineer and they're expecting £50k+. They're on a completely different planet.
When you do recruit someone young 9 times out of 10 they're lazy. Also having mummy call in sick for them on a Monday because they've had a tough weekend is all too common.
Why is it a problem for them to ask why there aren't more women?
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?
Inappropriateness is based on values and is subjective, you should keep subjectivity out of it unless it is a business wide rule.You think it's appropriate for an absolute career starter to blindly questions? I consider it completely inappropriate.
The answer btw was because we hire fairly. Oh and typically for heavily quantitative roles (but also sales qualities) in a heavily competitive environment requiring long difficult hours.....we tend to get very few if any candidates who are women.
We are a business focused environment, we exist to make money and solve difficult problems. People tend to either love the place....or wash out quickly. For the men and women that are here it's a very rewarding experience to prove themselves and be rewarded for it.
Yes such as you employers sitting on a pedastal.
When the OP is clearly talking about people below this position.
Using one example to understanding entitlement, when in truth you are all entitled people in varying ways, hypocrisy at it's finest.
Key details you are missing too.
You are not the system but are a part of it and it is stifling people. Everyone blames each other, no self responsibility.
Nobody else find it strange that this thread is full of "Employers"?
It's not a back pedal, you just failed to interpret the direction my messages have been going.Quick, back pedal! Your message that I responded to:
Nothing in my responses since has anything to do with the stuff you're spouting. It merely explains the mechanics of why, as per your question, there are more employers here.
Top tier.
It's not a back pedal, you just failed to interpret the direction my messages have been going.
You are really surface level wow.
I type in the same direction my mind thinks, if you can't follow what a inidivual person has been typing in a topic then single out 1 question without interpreting the direction of that individual and trend of thought it is a failure on your half, in other words, highly surface level, you are fast to dismiss based on surface level things. Anything that requires actual brain work like I just mentioned is too much, either incapable or so arrogant you think one way of thinking is the aplomb in intelligence.The answer I have provided is the answer to the question you asked. It was a very obvious question. you're now trying to obfuscate it because you've made yourself look absolutely top tier.
I type in the same direction my mind thinks, if you can't follow what a inidivual person has been typing in a topic then single out 1 question without interpreting the direction of that indivisual and trend of thought it is a failure on your half, in other words, highly surface lvel, you are fast to dismiss based on surface level things, anything that requires actual brain work like I just mentioned is too much, either incapable or so arrogant you think one way of thinking is the aplomb in intelligence.
Fluid smarts, bridging thoughts and connections to other parts of life and other topics shows a deep intellect if it is simplified enough in a form that can be read by others, but this depends on the ability for the other to also comprehend.
If you say so.If you can't ask the right question
"Why aren't people talking about the entitlement of employers?"
You're just not very clever.
If you say so.
It's odd you claim I am some egg head then picture yourself as one.
Egg head was the term I used in my mind for someone who thinks they are intelligent but is not.Lol I'm definitely not claiming you're an egg head. Sadly every word that sums up my opinions of your intellect is likely to get me banned. So I'll just leave you with this...
Top tier.
What a bizarrely arrogant point of view.Because the fact they even have a chance to set foot in this building means they have more privilege than 99.99% of the planet. So they can spare me the woe is world attitude
Yes absolutely appropriate, because I wouldn’t want to interview anyone that can’t make an observation and ask a relatively open ended question.You think it's appropriate for an absolute career starter to blindly questions? I consider it completely inappropriate.
The answer btw was because we hire fairly. Oh and typically for heavily quantitative roles (but also sales qualities) in a heavily competitive environment requiring long difficult hours.....we tend to get very few if any candidates who are women.
BUT in trying to balance out the numbers in the senior positions the answer is not to positively discriminate, it is to go in at the grass roots level and encourage a more diverse range to take interest in the subjects there and take them further.
Also generally (not always) mums do tend to take more time off work than dads to bring up a family. This of course should not discount a woman from getting a top job BUT it is foolish to argue against the fact that if you take a pool of 10000 people it wont have an effect on the balance of sexes who reach the top tier of their career. anyone (regardless of man or woman) who takes time out to bring up a family is going to lose some time in work. over 10 years this could over all be a couple of years lost experience. statistically this is currently more likely to be women who do this so it is surely going to affect the AVERAGE career progression of a woman over a man.