So, let's say we have a company full of awesome coders. They are all guys. This new guy would fit right in. This woman is also highly qualified. Based on our past process, by default we hire the man...I think it may warrant some adjustment to the hiring process. Many people perceive a risk in doing something different, and yet change is called for here.

There is evidence that women are less likely to blow smoke up your ass about how great they are during an interview process. Interviewing inherently favors people with certain traits that say little about their actual abilities or work ethic, and smart interviewers adjust their process based on this. Unfortunately many smaller groups do not dedicate the time or resources to squashing these biases and really hiring the best candidates.

I personally find the whole situation rather disheartening. When I started on this career path years ago I did not envision myself working solely with ego-maniacal, immature...boys, but that seems to be at the core of the developer culture in many places, and it's not just a gender thing. Don't get me wrong, in many ways I still fit this stereotype, but it's like there's nothing there as a counterweight. I've gone to a lot of interviews over the last year and at place after place, it's just dudes, dudes, and more dudes.

On the other hand, our company recently went through a hiring spree and we were actively trying to get more women candidates. There were not many that applied and none of them were even close to being marginally qualified for the position. I don't know if others have this problem too, it could be that female coders are actually in high demand by companies that appreciate some diversity, and the good ones are not on the market that often.

If you have decent information on the reliability of your process, there is some argument that, if candidates are close enough in the results under that process that there is a very small probability that the differences are meaningful, a random selection among the candidates might be a better choice than consistently choosing the highest score -- this avoids privileging any systematic bias in the system when the differences are unlikely to be meaningful in what you are using the system as a proxy measure for.

Of course, most places don't actually have much meaningful insight into the reliability of their process so as to enable determining whether and when its outputs are actually meaningful in the first place, they adopt processes that subjectively seem right to the people adopting them, and don't do anything to validate them.

I said "your process." You can make meaningful measures in whatever way suit your company. It's not some mandate handed down from the stone age.

You've taken "so be it" totally out of context, as well. My point was if your evaluations determine a best candidate, you should take that candidate.

If you are not hiring the best candidate, the evaluations need a revamping.

You operate your business like a sexist byproduct of a sexist society.

If it's a toxic misogynist culture that makes women feel unwelcome, so be it, it's the best measure you've (currently) got.

(Except for, y'know, all these suggestions, methods and proven approaches that are fantastic alternatives to being a dick.)

If you read my comment in context, nothing you're saying is relevant.

The context is a reply to this comment:

> Let's assume that the best candidate should always be chosen. > How certain are you that your interview process is so damned accurate...