Is this sex discrimination?

[Lucygooseygander]

Advice needed, please.

I went for a promotion at work. There were four of us at the same level who went for it; 3 women and 1 man. Two of the women had more experience and more professional qualifications than the man, but he got the job. He’s not as experienced, and is less qualified than me, but still got it.

It feels like sex discrimination, but how can I prove it? The interview panel (nearly all men) will just say that he interviewed better. Any ideas what I can do?

It might be but without any evidence of deliberate discrimination it's impossible to prove. It could well be unconscious bias as much as anything. I have fallen foul of exactly the same thing and lost out on a job for (I suspect) this reason. They said he interviewed well too. I suspect they mean he seemed more confident dispite years less experience and me covering the job that we were interviewing for. Credit where it's due my colleague is a lovely guy and felt awful about it, I didn't blame him really. I left shortly after and started my business instead.

It could be direct discrimination, it could be unconscious bias, either way, I suspect it'll be very difficult to prove sadly. All the women can do is request their feedback in the hope a misstep might present itself there? I would also caveat that you may not always know how someone performed in an interview, the detail of their CV etc, but unfair treatment is pretty likely too sadly!

It may or may not be discrimination. There’s no way to know how each candidate performed in the interview (experience and qualifications aren’t the only determining factor!)

But you don’t have to “prove” it as such. If there is a potential act from which discrimination may be inferred then the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove that it wasn’t discriminatory. In which case they may have to disclose all the interview notes (possibly redacted) to show why the candidate they chose was the better candidate. We use objective scoring - so if we hired a man who scored 68/100, when the female candidate scored 80/100, that would likely mean that the female candidate was discriminated against if we hired the man.

But even then, each woman would only have a one in four chance of securing the job! There is always an element of discrimination during an interview process (otherwise everyone would have to be offered a job) so the question is whether it is unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex.

The burden of proof is “on the balance of probabilities” (ie is it more likely than not). It’s very rare to find overt discrimination - usually it has to be inferred. So it would be up to you/your lawyer to decide whether you genuinely believe it to be discrimination and whether you could convince a Tribunal that it was.

Interviews will take quals and experience but really these are threshold criteria. Once met then it will be up to how each candidate presents themselves and addresses the questions.

There is evidence that men will interview better because they will review a list of ten criteria and be able to do six and confidently detail their their ability to upskill.

A woman will see the same list be confident in 9 and not sell themselves as able to fill the gap if one.

Are there increasingly more men in proportion to women the higher up the org you look?
So 80% women in entry role, 50% supervisor, 30% management, 10% c suite for example?
Would speak to it being systemic bias.

If you don't plan to stay there, then speak to panel chair, lay out your concerns and say you need evidence of their evaluation of candidates and reason for making the appointment.

And is "confidence at interview" and "ability to bullshit about own potential in role" in the Person spec? (It could be, in different phrasing, for eg a sales role)

Impossible to prove, he may well have interviewed better. He may have more potential. It’s not all about qualifications and experience, obviously all four well qualified for the role or they’d not have interviewed him.

*confidence at interview" and "ability to bullshit about own potential"" impacts on communicating your knowledge, skills and competence.

I have sat on panels and it is noticeable that communication and confidence does impacting how people sell themselves. Interviews are about selling yourself as the best fit for a role.

And who, men or women, are in the main associated with self aggrandising and shortage of self awareness?

@anythinginapinch the job of a panel is to evaluate a person against the criteria and assess if the candidate can fill the brief. The person who confidently, clearly sets out their examples with the STAR method. A lot of people don't realise in interviews that they fail to communicate the basics, it's understandable it's nerves.

I do notice the younger candidates appear to be more comfortable acknowledging and sharing their part in success. I know as a woman late 40s my default is"my team". Just some insight from the other side of the table.

"The other side of the table" hahahahahahaha I've had three interviews in my life, and run about a trillion as I own my own company, retiring at 50 thank you. Much of my success is the people I employed. Gobshite blokes who deliver a confident, impressive interview are so often a bitter disappointment a few months in. They hide their difficulties, blow up their successes which belong in reality to their teams and some good fortune. They don't ask for help, they act without consulting, and they don't attend to detail. But hey, they were absolutely great at selling themselves. Just my experience from my side of the table.

II would start with looking back at job description. Does this cover the qualifications and experience they are looking for? It should. Does he have these things?

Depends on the circumstances but sometimes having extra years on the clock or extra qualifications may not add more value in taking on a role.

Are you public sector with highly governed processes or private? If you have policies I would scrutinise them.

I would suggest that the 3 of you should request written feedback from HR as to why you were unsuccessful and take it from there, as some discrepancies might come to light.

It does sound odd than they chose someone who is less experienced and qualified for the role out of 4 candidates who just happens to be the only guy.

Also, have a look at the current management structure: are there more men in senior roles? is it why the interview panel was also predominantly male?

This could tell you that your organisation has a bias towards promoting men and that you might need to look elsewhere if you want to progress in your career.

@anythinginapinch surely your probation period highlighted any issues? What is very concerning is your clear bias - that isn't okay. It looks like it is a good thing you are retiring given your prejudice against men. People interviewing confidently is an indicator of their skills to communicate well under pressure. A necessary skillset in a number of roles - perhaps not all.

When I was recruiting, it was how you did in the interview on that day that counted. You’d be scored on how you answered each question from the criteria provided, and the top scoring candidate would be offered the role. Someone may have more experience or better qualifications but the minimum or what was expected was laid out in the job description and did not change the interview outcome in itself.

You can submit a written request to see your interview notes. However, without seeing anyone else’s that is a bit fruitless. Have you asked for feedback?

Was it discrimination? Maybe, maybe not.