Two candidates visited my office two days ago to submit their applications for the position of a health assistant. I had the honor of taking part in the interviews with them.After the interview, the candidate did very well, but the CMD chose to hire the male candidate because of his physical strength and height as the best contender for the position.He didn't even give the female applicant a chance to demonstrate her qualifications.What do you think about this?
The job was not for her, that is why she did not get it. The CMD already had a preference in males for the position as some employers do also for some job openings, and on the condition that no males where found qualified for the position, he would have had to hire the lady the lady qualified and not go ahead to employ an unqualified male. If he had employed an unqualified male for the position when there was a qualified female, that would have been where I have an issue. Preference is what got the male the job.
I think that it would be dumb for employers who wants the progress of their companies to employ applicants based on gender preference alone, it must be that the preferred gender will enhance productivities and add value to the companies. So in the OP naretive I believe that the employers must feel that the job will best suit a male applicant, if not they'll be doing their company a diservice. My point is that as far as private sector work goes, I doubt that any reasonable company will employ based on gender inequality, it has to be the gender that'll be more productive for them. The public sector is a different ball game, they can employ based on sentiments and it could be either of the genders.
Generally I think that the issue of gender equality is been addressed because we can now see women that are holding top positions both in the public and private sectors, something that was solely for the male gender before.