To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by PeterStuer » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

dominicr wrote: post #138

Leherenn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand this dismissing about "culture fit". You describe it yourself as a frat house, which, I assume from the rest of your post, is not what you want. Work is not always only about output and skills, especially in a small company run by 20-something whose only social life is their colleagues. It says nothing about your skills, just that both sides would probably be miserable in case you were hired…

I think the point is that companies shouldn't be frat houses full of brogrammers. If you want to hang out with your friends and wrestle to decide coding patterns, then that's all well and good. But the second that it becomes a company that employs people it should be more mature, equal and accepting. Work is indeed not always only about output and skills, it's also about respecting each other and collaborating with d…

If you don't mind a sidequestion:

I have worked with and met with probably close to 100 start/scale-up companies in the software domain. I have not yet met a 'brogammer' shop. Some hipster dens, and yes, when the founder is a twenty something you will be hard pressed to find anyone over 30.

So is this 'brogrammer frathouse' a regional thing? Or is it maybe a B2C thing as I mostly work with B2B companies?

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

#162

Post by romwell » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:57 AM UTC

leadingthenet wrote: post #153

romwell wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't really understand this dismissing about "culture fit" You should understand that what you wrote sounds like discrimination by age (and sex, "frat" means male), which is illegal - and for good reasons. EDIT: specifically, the only way a 35-year-old is not a "culture fit" in "a small company run by 20-something whose only social life is their colleagues" is if that company is discriminating by age. I don't hav…

Culture is something you have a certain amount of control over. Age/sex/w/e isn't.

Exactly, and the way the parent didn't seem to fit into the 'culture' was by being older.

"Frathouse culture" is an euphemism for "group of mostly white young male people who exclude people who aren't like them" - because this is what fraternities literally are.

(Recall: by definition, fraternities are young, male, exclusive - and statistically, white).

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

#163

Post by romwell » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:58 AM UTC

Smithalicious wrote: post #124

romwell wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't really understand this dismissing about "culture fit" You should understand that what you wrote sounds like discrimination by age (and sex, "frat" means male), which is illegal - and for good reasons. EDIT: specifically, the only way a 35-year-old is not a "culture fit" in "a small company run by 20-something whose only social life is their colleagues" is if that company is discriminating by age. I don't hav…

Is it? It's discrimination by things that correlate with age, sure, but many things do.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

"I don't discriminate by age, only by gray hair!"

"I don't discriminate by sex, it's just that we have a no-birthing-kids culture!"

Um, no.

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

#164

Post by atoav » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:59 AM UTC

gaspoweredcat wrote: post #149

i have ASD and ADD, it certainly isnt easy, while i have ability my social skills are pretty terrible and the sad truth is that is what an interview is about, regardless of what the job is the one thing basically everyone has to have is the ability to work in sales because thats basically what you have to do at an interview, sell yourself (in full knowledge that there are others applying for the same position with mo…

I hate this as well — especially if it seems to be only about selling. I worked to lead various film crews and I can tell, that there is no correlation between how well somebody is able to sell themselves under pressure and the wuality of their work. If there was any relationship it is negative in proportion: the worst people I ever worked with were incredibly good at selling themselves to a degree you cold describe them as conmen (and it was always men). Coincidentally it was never their fault when they clearly didn’t manage to do their part.

That beeing said I still think it is good to give others a chance to get to know you. It happened multiple times to me that I found out only during a project just how humble some people have been — not mentioning things that would have instantly give them a pass.

Additional caveat: communications is a crucial skill to have in nearly any job and it is also a common point of failure in projects with more than one person ans any HR person worth their salary should be able to sieve out people who would hurt a project by beeing unable to communicate their ideas clearly.

I think if the process doesn’t you, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to tell them before coming to the interview: “I have condition XYZ and so it can happen that UVW. To allow you a truthful judgement of my work please consider looking at $PLACES”

That way a well meaning HR person has at least the chance of looking at you through with your unique context in the back of their mind.

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

#165

Post by rhizome » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 8:02 AM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #159

RobertRoberts wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird may be a simple emotional feeling people get because they sense you will mistreat them. (likely based on previous experience) What I have found dealing with people that are Aspie/ADD (father and brother) is they expect others to change behavior to adapt to themselves, but refuse to change their own behavior to adapt to others. (even when directly told their behavior is not acceptable) This means that many socia…

they expect others to change behavior to adapt to themselves, but refuse to change their own behavior That is something that is always overlooked. What about the mental health of the rest of the team who are expected to just smile when someone is obnoxiously rude to them over and over and over again? With no recourse to report it to HR? Every “aspie” probably actively harms the mental health of a dozen ordinary peopl…

>the rest of the team who are expected to just smile when someone is obnoxiously rude to them over and over and over again

Is that really a thing that happens?

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

#166

Post by belorn » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 8:03 AM UTC

unnouinceput wrote: post #128

Wasn't this tried like a year ago at one of FAANG companies and an AI was put in charge for automation process and it hired only male, mostly white, and got a huge backlash? I can't quite recall the details nor the specific company but I do recall the backlash from feminists, so somebody help with a link please.

There is no AI involved in this story.

> potential employees undergo a basic competency assessment in which they are evaluated against 25 desirable attributes for software testers, such as the ability to learn new systems or take on feedback. Following these initial tests, potential staff undergo a week of working from home fully paid.

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

#167

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 8:06 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #16

seibelj wrote: post #3

> Instead of using CVs and interviews, potential employees undergo a basic competency assessment in which they are evaluated against 25 desirable attributes for software testers, such as the ability to learn new systems or take on feedback. Following these initial tests, potential staff undergo a week of working from home fully paid. They still have an interview. It just isn’t like a traditional interview. You need t…

It's not an interview if they're paying you, it's a conditional hire for a week. Calling it an interview is like calling actually starting a job after a barrage of three interviews the fourth interview. At some point you're torturing the meaning of the word to pointlessness.

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by C1sc0cat » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 8:18 AM UTC

icotyl wrote: post #101

mnsc wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I had the opposite experience. I don't have Asperger's or ADD (...) So you had experience that's not related to interviewing with Asperger's or ADD. That's cool too.

I can certainly relate to coming off as weird or socially awkward or unintentionally rude, and it has affected my job interview performance. People diagnosed with ADD/Asperger's don't really have a monopoly on that.

Plenty of neurodiverse people don't have a formal diagnosis BTW

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

#169

Post by belorn » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 8:20 AM UTC

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.

Protected classes as a legal concept in the US is two lists, one federal and then state law. In that context you are either on either of them or you are not, and depending on the answer you get certain protections.

In EU there is no such list. Anti-discrimination law is quite a bit broader here, but so is also the exceptions.

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

#170

Post by tsimionescu » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 8:22 AM UTC

MetalGuru wrote: post #111

tsimionescu wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're discussing from a position that puts team efficiency (and company efficiency) above any other value. You may in fact be right that certain kinds of diversity can hurt team efficiency (for an obvious example, if you already have a team of white power types, hiring a black man on that mteam will lead to morale issues). However, in practice, and especially for large companies, optimizing only for efficiency is si…

I’m genuinely curious, why is it a company’s responsibility (in a capitalist society) to hire someone less efficient? I agree that work is fundamentally important, but how is this not the government’s responsibility like any other welfare effort? Also, are you claiming that employment is an undeniable human right like free speech or protection from harm? And if so, what happens if there’s something like another Great…

Well, there are many ways to look at this. The most utilitarian is simply this: you could have a society in which people can live a decent life without having a job and without being born rich. In this society, companies could be allowed to only hire for maximal efficiency, since the state could e sure the livihood of those who don't get chosen for jobs by other means. However, such a society would be vastly different from our own - for example, it would be essentially impossible to hire for menial labor, since without the threat of starvation few people would choose to become garbage workers or maids. For another, you would necessarily have high taxes on the employed to be able to support the unemployed, which would lead to political problems and would likely be an unstable equilibrium.

In our society we have chosen a different solution, pretty much all over the world: your ability to have food and shelter is conditioned on having a job (or being born rich), but in exchange, the state tries its best to guarantee you a job. We don't generally allow the state to operate companies, so the only way for the state to guarantee jobs is to incentivize and even force companies to employ people without discrimination, to at least some extent.

Now, my personal belief is that the justification should come the other way around - why do we allow society to judge your right to a basic livelihood by any criteria at all? But I'm guessing that would not be a compelling argument, and I can't claim to have a working picture of how such a society could look like.