Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 437 posts

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#51

Post by core-questions »

antoinevg wrote: post #31
core-questions wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've heard it so many times about people interviewing others, as "(s)he is smart, passed all test, but weird, I don't like to work with her/him". At this point, it is systemic discrimination. No, that's a misnomer. Systematic discrimination implies the system itself codifies this behaviour - but instead, what is codified is _team fit_, which is often based heavily on intuition. Humans are capable of being good judg…

> Let's face it: for neurotypical people, a lot of autists are very hard to get along with. Their behaviour is not always predictable in the way that we need behaviour to be in a workplace; and when more pronounced, their specific needs are not something that we want to have to address in our coworkers. Or try it like this and see how it feels: "Let's face it: for white people, a lot of black people are very hard to…

Hey, if you want to make it a racial thing, that's your problem. I find people "go to the well" for this sort of argument when they can't actually argue with the real premise.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#52

Post by gt2 »

I've seen some articles[0] and firms[1] in the last years of not only valuing diversity in profiles of people but actually valuing aspies higher than neurotypical types.

I think aspergers can definitely be a super power, but I thought it strange to actually say it is a net advantage since how can it be expected across the board?

0. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20160106-model-employee...

1. https://auticon.com

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#53

Post by stubish »

core-questions wrote: post #28
stared wrote: post #7

As an Aspie/ADD, I have never passed any formal interview, even for an intern position (sic!). (You can compare and contrast it with my GitHub/Resume/blog to make a judgment.) Fortunately, many times (even for mid-size companies or research institutes) the hiring was less formal. For small startups, where it is informal, I didn't feel at a disadvantage. For big, I don't believe I can pass through the first filter. It…

> I've heard it so many times about people interviewing others, as "(s)he is smart, passed all test, but weird, I don't like to work with her/him". At this point, it is systemic discrimination. No, that's a misnomer. Systematic discrimination implies the system itself codifies this behaviour - but instead, what is codified is _team fit_, which is often based heavily on intuition. Humans are capable of being good judg…

This reads almost identical to the rationales against hiring women from past decades. Women did not fit in with the male teams; ingrained misogyny was so common. And yes, they didn't behave the same, and had special needs (they were still expected to be mothers, needed separate toilets installed, customs like having the boss over for dinner prepared by wife didn't work, weekend golf and the bloke talk was unthinkable with women along), and required coworkers to adapt and change, as acceptable behavior around the work place was not acceptable around women at the time.

Team fit shouldn't be the only criteria, and shouldn't be a criteria at all if you have a cultural problem. A company that has decided it needs to hire more women or fewer arseholes or has a staff burnout issue or high staff turnover does not want to keep hiring the same type of people, and that is what you get when you are hiring on team fit. Beyond ethical issues, a company can decide on purely economic grounds that it wants to be hiring neurodiverse workers, and that might mean losing people who are unable to adapt. And you probably want to lose them, given that there is more acceptance of the neurodiverse elsewhere and your team members will need to deal with them, even if you don't hire them yourself.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#54

Post by RHSeeger »

antoinevg wrote: post #34
core-questions wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've heard it so many times about people interviewing others, as "(s)he is smart, passed all test, but weird, I don't like to work with her/him". At this point, it is systemic discrimination. No, that's a misnomer. Systematic discrimination implies the system itself codifies this behaviour - but instead, what is codified is _team fit_, which is often based heavily on intuition. Humans are capable of being good judg…

> Of course, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who vehemently disagree with me ... and will make you a protected class soon enough. Not asking for special privileges or protections. Asking for the same privileges and protections afforded to everyone else.

My understanding is that the protected classes are the only ones afforded protections related to these things.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#55

Post by antoinevg »

core-questions wrote: post #51
antoinevg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's face it: for neurotypical people, a lot of autists are very hard to get along with. Their behaviour is not always predictable in the way that we need behaviour to be in a workplace; and when more pronounced, their specific needs are not something that we want to have to address in our coworkers. Or try it like this and see how it feels: "Let's face it: for white people, a lot of black people are very hard to…

Hey, if you want to make it a racial thing, that's your problem. I find people "go to the well" for this sort of argument when they can't actually argue with the real premise.

You mistake my intent.

I'm not trying to "go to the wall" because I want to win an argument with you.

What I'm trying to do is use an example of another kind of discriminatory behaviour which is socially unacceptable to demonstrate to you that many people will find your words to be obnoxious and judge you harshly for them.

But hey, if you don't care about that kind of thing then it's not your problem I guess.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#56

Post by dehrmann »

Thorentis wrote: post #2

We need more genetic diversity in STEM. When will we be introducing DNA testing and doing mutation testing on all candidates to ensure perfectly equal distribution of all genetic combinations among employees?

Genetic discrimination is already somewhat prohibited in the US, so laws might be ahead of industry practice for once.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#57

Post by antoinevg »

RHSeeger wrote: post #54
antoinevg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who vehemently disagree with me ... and will make you a protected class soon enough. Not asking for special privileges or protections. Asking for the same privileges and protections afforded to everyone else.

My understanding is that the protected classes are the only ones afforded protections related to these things.

Please enhance your understanding, your world will be richer for it:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Privilege#Privilege_blindness

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#58

Post by shantly »

hogFeast wrote: post #29

Am in this demo, and my interview experiences have been bewildering. Whenever someone has actually tried to assess my skills and get me do something, so almost never, it is always fine. In an interview, I have almost no idea what is happening and it is never fine. Yes, this isn't going to suit everyone but the point is that suits some people who were totally shut out before.

It may be infeasible for a number of reasons, but this post makes me wonder whether it'd be worth asking candidates how they'd like to be interviewed, then doing that.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#59

Post by RHSeeger »

antoinevg wrote: post #57
RHSeeger wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the protected classes are the only ones afforded protections related to these things.

Please enhance your understanding, your world will be richer for it: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Privilege#Privilege_blindness

Please go back and re-read what I said.

I was talking about protections, not privileges. The protected classes are the only ones that are actually protected by law. The fact that other groups (white, male, etc) benefit from privileges are a reason for there being protected classes, but they are not the same thing at all.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#60

Post by bryanrasmussen »

missosoup wrote: post #10
shantly wrote: post #6

> Terms like these – or interview questions such as ‘where you see yourself in five years’ – can be too general for people with autism, as many with the condition can find vague questions particularly hard to decipher. Pretty sure it's not just autistic folks who have to have prepped & memorized some bullshit in advance to have any kind of "acceptable" answer to those sorts of questions. Not to take away from the bro…

Never in my entire career have I been asked the 'where do you see yourself in 5 years' question. It doesn't even make sense in the tech world. In five years? There's a good chance your company/business unit won't exist and I'll be 1-2 jobs on from this one mate. Don't worry about it. It sounds like a hollywood movie cliche you'd hear at an interview scene. I'd laugh if I got that question in an actual interview. I'm…

how long is your career and how many times do you think you've interviewed? I've been asked at least 2 times, also the ones like what is your biggest weakness, or if I could hire someone that can do everything you do but is better at X (where X is are lcoal, or will work for less) tell me why I should hire you (which I think means you're supposed to say something like because I am a creative problem solver or something like that - I just say you shouldn't, you should hire them if they can do everything I can do but property X is better)
Post reply on HN