The Gender Implications When Hiring & Interviewing
Men think they're smarter than 66-percent of their peers. For women it's less so, 54-percent.
Women don't think of themselves as ready for promotion and they consistently underestimate their talents. See #1 above.
Women are more frequently hired to take over organizations, departments or programs that are troubled than men are. So what happened to the women I spoke with? These issues came to a head when they were faced with the proverbial interview question about change. It goes something like: "Based on what you've seen today, what is your vision for our organization, department, program?" Anybody who's read anything about leadership knows that rapid change, particularly from a new hire, goes nowhere. These women knew that. Each gave an answer that was a variation of: change takes time, buy-in is important, describing how they like to observe, watch, listen and learn before experimenting, analyzing, testing again, and implementing. None of them got the job. The positions went to men. Is it possible the men offered less measured and reasoned responses? Is it possible they replied with a laundry list of changes, delivered with a confidence and panache that was just what the interview committee wanted to hear even though few organizations--except the most desperate--can sustain wholesale hierarchical change? I can imagine you eye-rolling here. How do you know, you ask? And you're right. There are a million reasons for offering a job to one person over another. But is it possible that boards or hiring committees confuse confidence with competence? That a confident answer even if it flies in the face of every good leadership best practice is more acceptable than a more measured response? And might that be a gendered thing since we know men tend to sound more confident? In fact, if I were asked, going forward, I'd tell each of these women to answer that question differently. I'd tell them to practice sounding confident, responding with a vision statement and a list of areas that need experimentation. Some final caveats: This isn't about getting women to act more like men even though it seems that way. Successful women are confident, but the consequences of acting confident are different for men and women. Women are judged differently than men, and therefore answers to the most basic questions are heard differently. Women need to be twice as good to be seen as half as competent. All of this is 10 times harder and more complex for women of color, women who are overweight, women with disabilities, LGBTQ and transgender women because the opportunity for bias multiplies. And lastly, if you are hiring:
Remember, an interview is like a wedding. If that's the happiest day of your life, you're in trouble. Hire for the long haul, not the razzle dazzle. There are many who ace the interview, but there's no there there when it comes to real leadership.
Because the museum field is tipping so precipitously toward becoming a pink collar profession, hiring committees may think they're doing the field a service by hiring a man. That may be. Just make sure the process is equitable. Tokenism is tokenism no matter who's in the mix.
Talk openly about issues of bias--where and how they appear--with your search committee before the process begins. You may want to use a bias exercise to help your committee understand where they are.
Build a diverse interview committee that includes POC, the young, the experienced. Let the committee discuss its governance rules ahead of time. Make it a safe space where all thoughts are welcome.
Discuss the difference between diversity and difference. Is your program, department or museum ready for a challenge? See suggestion #2.
Be open. Remember it's not just about you. It's about your organization. Look for the person who will help your museum grow.Joan Baldwin
コメント