More women in tech

Daily Press (Sunday) - - Success - By Deb­bie Mad­den

|

I've seen hun­dreds of teams im­ple­ment di­ver­sity and in­clu­sion ini­tia­tives with the aim of in­creas­ing gen­der di­ver­sity.

Not all di­ver­sity and in­clu­sion ini­tia­tives are cre­ated equally, of course. Some are a huge waste of time, and oth­ers are so sim­ple you wish you would have done them sooner.

As the co-founder and CEO of a com­pany, I want to see more women join tech com­pa­nies. There are many things these com­pa­nies could be do­ing to im­prove their hir­ing prac­tices. Here are sev­eral to con­sider. and ties hang­ing out in the of­fice? Make sure the pic­tures that rep­re­sent your team, both on your web­site as well as all ex­ter­nal web­sites like Glass­door and LinkedIn, in­clude a va­ri­ety of in­clu­sive pho­tos or pho­tos high­light­ing a greater va­ri­ety of as­pects of your com­pany cul­ture.

Sixty-one per­cent of women in tech say they wouldn't work for a com­pany with­out paid fam­ily leave, yet many star­tups of­fer lit­tle or no ma­ter­nity ben­e­fits.

Pro­vide paid ben­e­fits to new par­ents to limit turnover due to child­birth. If you can af­ford less than you'd like to of­fer, re­visit this and other ben­e­fits an­nu­ally and make small in­creases as you go. Also take note of ben­e­fits your state pro­vides that can be added on top of any that your com­pany pro­vides. ity. Not ev­ery ar­ti­cle you write will be a mas­ter­piece or go vi­ral, and that's OK. The im­por­tant thing is to make your­self heard. If you do get at­ten­tion, it will help your re­cruit­ing ef­forts.

And even if you don't, you'll still have shared your per­spec­tives with oth­ers.

It's nearly im­pos­si­ble to con­duct an en­tire in­ter­view process with­out know­ing the can­di­date's gen­der, but aim to have at least one step in the process that can be blind, mean­ing the per­son re­view­ing the can­di­date is not shown the can­di­date's iden­tity in any way.

Once in a while, ad­vance a fe­male can­di­date to the next step of the in­ter­view, even if she has failed the cur­rent step.

Col­lect feed­back from the sub­se­quent in­ter­view step and as­sess if per­haps there was bias re­spon­si­ble for her hav­ing been re­jected at the pre­vi­ous step. If the can­di­date sat­is­fies the sub­se­quent in­ter­view step, you'll have learned you might have bias in your in­ter­view process.

And if you find she's still not qual­i­fied or not the right fit, you'll have con­firmed your vet­ting process is ef­fec­tive.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.