Microsoft admitted their discriminatory practices?

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/microsoft-made-a-genius-change-to-its-hiring-process-amazon-apple-google-should-learn-from-it.html

Just a thought: Microsoft made adjustments for people who have autism, removing some of interview requirements that aren't really essential for finding people who can get the job done, but were mandatory for all the candidates to get a job.
Doesn't that mean that they indirectly admitted that their interview practices were simply discriminatory?

Not really. If you think about it, they can hire who they want based on their criteria, without being discriminatory. It sounds like they decided to change that criteria somewhat, because they realized they were missing opportunities, by focusing too much on non-essential traits. Think about if a teaching agency hired strictly based on qualifications and not on teaching ability. This could be really detrimental. You can have a PhD in math and be ill-suited to teaching math to elementary or high school students. The essential there is to make sure the candidate knows their material and also would make a good teacher. At Microsoft they must've come to realize that they didn't care quite as much about the social or "EQ" kinds of skills they were screening for in interviews, maybe without even realizing they were doing it. It reminds me of when I applied for music school. I went in for an interview etc., and the professor let us know that the impression I made on them as a person would have absolutely nothing to do with whether I was admitted or not. I remember my stepmom insisted "but surely it has some impact" and they reassured us that no, it really does not...it's all about the audition. Being a nice person won't get you anywhere, just as being cold, aloof, arrogant or whatever else, won't hurt your chances. But if they wanted only nice people in their program, they could've added that as part of their admissions criteria...and that's their prerogative in the end.

Does that mean that they could include skin color as the part of their criteria without being discriminatory? If not, what makes the difference? /s


We aren't talking about anything teaching-related here.


Too bad that I don't work as a musician.

No, they cannot use skin color as that has nothing to do with the ability to perform a job. The law is clear that criteria of using race is discriminatory.

Using the criteria of social communication that is important in a work environment is not. Communication is considered a function required or needed for work. What Microsoft is doing is recognizing that social communication might not be as valuable and is changing their hiring procedure to target a group that have skills they believe is valuable, but that might not be able to pass a process that uses social communication to make a determination. Note, they are not changing their hiring process for all positions, and so they believe social communication is still important for certain positions.

You might be interested in this: ASD in the Workplace

As well as ASD - they admitted that themselves.


As well as disability, doesn't it?


It still is - just not in exactly the same form, and not by the same standards that they demanded to demonstrate during the interview.

If they instituted telephone interviews to purposely filter out candidates with ASD, then that would be discrimination. But that is not what happened. They simply used telephone interviews to assess candidates. Any candidate that does not perform under those condition, whether they have ASD or not, do not do well. But the option of written interviews places a higher bar for those with dyslexia. Any measure will create biases, but that does not mean the measure is used to discriminate against a certain class of candidate.

I've also heard that some places will specifically hire people on the spectrum because they know they work harder and are more focused...in some ways taking advantage of them, they'll end up getting more out of them than they will other employees. I definitely felt like I was being taken advantage of somewhat at my last workplace...and previous ones too...but sometimes jobs are like that for anyone.

Are you a telepath? Because I don't see any way how you would know for sure what was their purpose.


And it just conveniently happened that their interviews effectively filter out candidates with ASD, anxiety disorders, TLE, verbal speech disorders, concentration problems, etc. And I'm not even talking about something really crippling; just a small deviation from "perfectly healthy" means that you don't pass.


However, when the interview process requires you to do something what you don't really need to do at work, that looks suspicious.

I saw some articles about that, but they looked more like PR than like real stuff.

You seem to be accusing them of discrimination against people with ASD. What is your proof? It would be strange for them to suddenly make it easier if their intention is to make it harder.

I don't know, maybe you're partially right...there was one source from the book Neurotribes, where the author talks about how he interviewed at least one executive from a tech company who said all their top coders are on the spectrum, because of their unique abilities...I've heard that some places do prefer people on the spectrum anyway, for certain positions, which is maybe similar to what Microsoft is doing here...it wouldn't surprise me if others came up with the idea before Microsoft.

Any kinds of mental differences, not just ASD. Btw, I forgot to add depression and bipolar to the list.


I already wrote one possible proof, but it looks like nothing is enough for you.


No idea what you mean.

This book, is it really good?

You link to an article stating Microsoft has changed their interview process to accommodate people with ASD. And that is discriminatory? That is your proof? Or is this thread simply Microsoft bashing?

And yes, Neurotribes is a really good book.

They didn't hire people who were otherwise qualified for the job, but didn't pass some arbitrary requirements. If that doesn't mean discrimination, I don't know what does.

Last edited by XenoMind on 11 Sep 2020, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I thought it was a good book. I don't always make it through books these days, my attention span is not as great for reading as it used to be...but I think I read it in about a week which was fast for me, and it's fairly long, so it kept my interest. The author definitely did a very extensive study of autism, and it broadened my understanding of it. Some parts were a little boring but mostly it was interesting all the way through. It won an award as well.