Is Merit Based Hiring on the Way Out?

[Audie]

I am not an employer, so I am just shooting my mouth off. Sorry about that.
That well was poisoned by previous generations and pretended not to have anything against a diverse workforce, and so now everybody has to tow the line legally speaking. They had to make laws about it.

.

Huh. I really think the opposite was true.

 

[Audie]

I believe in fairness and equality, but what you're describing here appears to be a variation on tokenism - merely for the sake of appearances. However benevolent it might be presented, it's still just as racist and/or sexist as anything else.

However, I don't know if it's the radical left that wants this. This has been more in the realm of the liberal left and moderate conservatives who want to make a point of proving to the world that they're not racist or sexist. It's a lie - and it always has been since day one. I see it more as a shameless ploy on the part of upper class whites wanting to keep their ill-gotten wealth while making lower class whites into scapegoats for all their sins.

That's why, after all these decades, there are still complaints about how little progress has been made in the area of the civil rights - despite all the rhetoric and propaganda surrounding it.

Virtue signaling by the white saviour industrial complex.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Huh. I really think the opposite was true.

By-the-way I made a grammatical error in that quotation. It should have said "...well was poisoned by previous generations which pretended..."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, I agree with that.

Okay - so you agree that there's more to good hiring than just picking a minimally qualified candidate, right?

So in the case you described in the OP where an HR manager realizes that they aren't attracting a segment of the candidates they want to attract, what do you think is more likely to result in picking the best candidate for the job?

- continue with the status quo, or

- look carefully at the posting, company reputation, etc., to figure out why it's pushing some candidates away, fix the issue, and recruit from an enlarged pool of talent.

By leveraging hiring based on race, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[sealchan]

I have noticed something that has been bothering me. I am seeing some hiring managers going out of their way to meet arbitrary quotas in regards to hiring people who are not white men, regardless of qualifications. This really bothers me. I have nothing against a diverse workforce, but the idea that merit comes second to race or sex gets under my skin.

An example, a recent hiring manager from Twitter posted that his search was not what he expected. He said he had several responses but only two of them were women. Instead of accepting the notion that, perhaps, men would more interested in the position, he assumed he made a mistake in promoting the position. The radical left of Twitter, of course, agreed that he screwed up and needed to do X, Y and Z to make that position more balanced.

I call nonsense on that. If you make a job posting and it is dominated by men, it should be assumed that women are not interested in the position. Job posting boards/forums want more people to apply, that is how they make their money. To claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

It is my opinion that hiring should be based on merit, knowledge, and experience. Gender, race, etc should not even be a consideration. Yet the radical left wants exactly that. They want gender and race to become active indicators for hiring people. I think that is a very dangerous road and it makes me uncomfortable.

That is a little simplistic but to your point it is likely that a hiring manager is not going to successfully change the population of interested applicants to meet a quota. Education and social attitudes need to do that work and perhaps the company can encourage such things but hardly control it.

 

[Audie]

By-the-way I made a grammatical error in that quotation. It should have said "...well was poisoned by previous generations which pretended..."

You were quoting yourself?
"Which", or, "who"?

In general it is tacky to comment on grammar / spelling
etc unless the poster is saying how smart they are,
like one who recently said she has an IQ of 150
(not 147, or 152), but cannot seem to write one
sentence that would get past a third grade
teacher.

All that said, it was still backwards.

 

[Quintessence]

Quotas are necessary for a couple of reasons. One, discrimination against minority groups in the hiring process well-evidenced. Two, such discrimination limits opportunities for upward mobility for minority groups. Upward mobility is in a worse state than it has been in a long time in my country. So much so that it is likely you will face downwards mobility. The family you were born into - their socioeconomic status - plays a huge role in your mobility as well. The obstacles thrown in your face if you are poor are huge, and worse if you are also a minority. Extra support like quotas helps even the scale.

But how does this reality affect these groups – African Americans and women – as they hunt for jobs? Do they tailor their searches narrowly to help them avoid discrimination, sticking to job opportunities deemed “appropriate” for them? Or do they cast a wider net with the hopes of maximizing their chances of finding a job that does not discriminate?

...

The results of our study point to three general conclusions about the job search process:

1. African Americans cast a wider net than whites while searching for work
2. Women tend to apply to a narrower set of job types than men, often targeting roles that have historically been dominated by women
3. Past experiences of discrimination appear to drive, at least in part, the broader job search patterns of African Americans.

On an important side note, these racial differences exist for both men and women and these gender differences exist for both whites and African Americans.
From - Here's how minority job seekers battle bias in the hiring process​

 

[David1967]

I have noticed something that has been bothering me. I am seeing some hiring managers going out of their way to meet arbitrary quotas in regards to hiring people who are not white men, regardless of qualifications. This really bothers me. I have nothing against a diverse workforce, but the idea that merit comes second to race or sex gets under my skin.

An example, a recent hiring manager from Twitter posted that his search was not what he expected. He said he had several responses but only two of them were women. Instead of accepting the notion that, perhaps, men would more interested in the position, he assumed he made a mistake in promoting the position. The radical left of Twitter, of course, agreed that he screwed up and needed to do X, Y and Z to make that position more balanced.

I call nonsense on that. If you make a job posting and it is dominated by men, it should be assumed that women are not interested in the position. Job posting boards/forums want more people to apply, that is how they make their money. To claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

It is my opinion that hiring should be based on merit, knowledge, and experience. Gender, race, etc should not even be a consideration. Yet the radical left wants exactly that. They want gender and race to become active indicators for hiring people. I think that is a very dangerous road and it makes me uncomfortable.

I would never hire anyone based on anything 'but' merit. Quotas based on race or sex rather than the quality of the applicant can be disastrous. Think of the medical field. Would you want a doctor who was hired because of race or sex, or would you rather get the one with the highest qualifications regardless of race or sex? IMO questions regarding race should not even be on a job application.

 

[pearl]

It is my opinion that hiring should be based on merit, knowledge, and experience. Gender, race, etc should not even be a consideration. Yet the radical left wants exactly that. They want gender and race to become active indicators for hiring people. I think that is a very dangerous road and it makes me uncomfortable.

You cannot deny that history proves that hiring has not always been based on merit but indeed based on race/gender and denying those of equal merit because of it. Problem is the remedy for this is still based on race/gender in order to equalize the process of hiring.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would never hire anyone based on anything 'but' merit.

How have you made sure of that?

Quotas based on race or sex rather than the quality of the applicant can be disastrous. Think of the medical field. Would you want a doctor who was hired because of race or sex, or would you rather get the one with the highest qualifications regardless of race or sex? IMO questions regarding race should not even be on a job application.

So you think the status quo has been to hire the person with the highest qualifications? If so, why?

 

[David1967]

How have you made sure of that?

I hire based on what I know of them. If that turns out to be wrong, I fire them.

So you think the status quo has been to hire the person with the highest qualifications? If so, why?

I can't really speak to how other people have been hiring. These are just my thoughts on how I believe it should be.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You were quoting yourself?
"Which", or, "who"?

I firmly assert it ought to be 'Which' since generation is an impersonal noun; and I don't care whether a billion English teachers disagree or agree with me. It ain't a personal noun. You know what they can all just go learn some other language far from mine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hire based on what I know of them. If that turns out to be wrong, I fire them.

What does that mean?

Discrimination in hiring can sometimes be hard to spot. For instance, many job postings require a driver's license even if driving isn't a necessary part of the job. This ends up excluding high quality candidates who don't drive because of a disability.

Have you gone through your hiring processes to look for issues like this? If not, how do you know that you're hiring solely based on merit?

I can't really speak to how other people have been hiring. These are just my thoughts on how I believe it should be.

You presented two options. So you think neither one reflects the status quo?

If we're comparing inclusive hiring practices to something, shouldn't we ask whether it's better than what's happening now instead of comparing it to some hypothetical system you've dreamed up?

 

[David1967]

I recall that one of the signs of being a racist is the belief that the most
qualified person should get the job.

I think that is a sign of being a person of common sense and reason, not a racist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that is a sign of being a person of common sense and reason, not a racist.

U of M would disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

U of M would disagree.

... you claim.

 

[Revoltingest]

... you claim.

You betcha.

 

[sealchan]

My collection of thoughts:

Children are socialized into different areas of interest. This may "artificially" influence their range of professions because the development of their interests and aptitudes may be curtailed.

So from an early age I think that it is important to counter such socialized biases mildly in an effort to promote each individual's natural inclinations.

A company can help with this by producing products marketed more to members of the opposite sex in order to encourage those who want to work/play/learn "across the sexual aisle" to do so.

I think of STEM as a big opportunity because I am fairly certain that many women opt out of STEM related careers due to social pressures and perceived inferior reasoning skills. However, for reasons below, I suspect that this is short-sighted and that promoting women in STEM will be advantageous in the long run not just for STEM-curious women but for the professions overall.

If one sex is seen as better at something this is not a final argument that indicates that one sex should preferentially do that task. What is better is often defined as what is traditionally expected. Adding a differently able population to an activity could well reveal qualitative aspects to that activity that were ignored before but could become relevant or even seen as indispensable as that new population ramps up its contribution. The selection of the competitively most qualified, then, isn't the end of the story as far as who might be seen as most desirable. Some spread of various qualities might be ideal in a given role and choosing members of a team based on too focused of a criteria may actually be myopic and counterproductive.

Promotion of racial diversity probably mainly addresses historical bias. if from a set of minimally qualified individuals, a certain measure of of individuals with skill-unrelated aspects are preferentially selected this is presumably in line with local population. This would be clearly a matter of redressing an historical imbalance...why would anyone expect to have a higher than average chance based on local population?

Or perhaps a fair way might be to take the pool of all minimally qualified individuals and measure that pools racial makeup in terms of percentage. Then one could look at the local population's racial makeup. Then a figure which slightly preferences historically discriminated types that is in between the two percentages but closer to the application pool could be used to select who gets a job offer. That would be minimally nudging job offers in the direction of diversity slightly beyond the reality of the qualified applicant pool. Such efforts would be based on real data for the local population and would not be unfair if historical unfairness is considered a relevant consideration which as a society I think it should be.

 

[Quetzal]

Okay - so you agree that there's more to good hiring than just picking a minimally qualified candidate, right?

The idea is to get the best fit for the position across multiple dimensions. Gender and race should not be one of those dimensions.

Edit: Sorry, to answer your question directly, yes, you are correct that being minimally qualified is not the only box that should be checked.

So in the case you described in the OP where an HR manager realizes that they aren't attracting a segment of the candidates they want to attract, what do you think is more likely to result in picking the best candidate for the job?

This was not the problem. There was probably a more than qualified candidate in that pile but because the demographics did not meet his expectations, he felt the need to correct it. Those demographics should not drive hiring practices, period.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have noticed something that has been bothering me.

What you've noted does sound troubling. Although I think there are factors in place somewhat balancing this in other areas with the advent of remote application and hiring processes.

For the job I am currently in, I was hired sight-unseen after a few lengthy phone calls. Not once was race/ethnicity discussed. By my name and voice it was pretty obvious I was male, but nothing else was known or discussed but my qualifications and experience.