Is Merit Based Hiring on the Way Out?

[sun rise]

I was a hiring manager in a couple of jobs during my career and the following are my personal observations.

If an HR manager knows that there are, say, 30% women in a particular field, but when they post jobs in that field, they only get 5% women applying, this ought to be a sign that something is wrong: is the posting somehow not reaching women in the field? Is there sonething in the posting that turns women off? Is there something wrong with the reputation of the company (or an individual manager)?...

True. Job descriptions can be written in many ways, some of which are biased. During my years hiring programmers, we spoke of some as what would now be called "autism spectrum" people. If a job emphasized independent work, it would selectively appeal to people who prefer to work alone.

As How to Make Job Descriptions Women-Friendly | GovLoop noted, "We work hard and play hard" implies that someone has to be "on the job" even when not working. "We emphasize family life balance" sends a different message.

 

[sun rise]

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

Qualifications is not a black/white question. There is group fit, technical knowledge, learning ability and trust to name just 4.

When I hired people, we had the candidates in for a group interview. A qualification was that we all felt comfortable working with the person and believed that the new hire would not be disruptive.

And when hiring someone, current knowledge had to be balanced against how someone learned new things. A technically less qualified person with great learning ability was a better hire than someone who knew quite a bit but had trouble as it became obsolete.

And trust was a critical question. If I felt I could not trust someone, they were not hired.

 

[Quetzal]

I was a hiring manager in a couple of jobs during my career and the following are my personal observations.



True. Job descriptions can be written in many ways, some of which are biased. During my years hiring programmers, we spoke of some as what would now be called "autism spectrum" people. If a job emphasized independent work, it would selectively appeal to people who prefer to work alone.

As How to Make Job Descriptions Women-Friendly | GovLoop noted, "We work hard and play hard" implies that someone has to be "on the job" even when not working. "We emphasize family life balance" sends a different message.

These are good points.

 

[sun rise]

Discrimination in hiring can sometimes be hard to spot.

The biggest mistake I ever made hiring someone was a person who I thought was a bit like me but with less breaks in life. I thought I was giving him a chance. He was incompetent and could not pick things up quickly enough. So my bias was personal but it was still there and I only really understood it after I messed up.

 

[PureX]

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 think you are imagining a "radical left" based on a few lone opinions, and then using it to shore up your own cultural ideological peccadillo. People hire other people for lots of different reasons, all of which they would consider being of "merit" to them. That their reasons and their idea of merit do not align with yours is not relevant.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe you.
You weren't even born yet back then.
But while being female would've been a plus,
being asian is a strike against you.

They like hiring Asians, especially women, to work on submarines, building them. Easier for them to fit into smaller spaces. Is that racist?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

No body's perfect in hiring. We try to be unbiased, give everyone a chance but, we usually end up hiring non- america bone engineers. I think it's more a problem with the schools in America then the people themselves but you start looking for the the non-american educated folks cause they are more likely to have the skill set you are looking for, in certain jobs.

 

[Revoltingest]

They like hiring Asians, especially women, to work on submarines, building them. Easier for them to fit into smaller spaces. Is that racist?

The problem with asians is that they're over-represented in universities & STEM fields.
So they must be excluded to some extent, lest they do too well, thereby keeping others down.
Hey, don't blame me....I don't make the rules.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The biggest mistake I ever made hiring someone was a person who I thought was a bit like me but with less breaks in life. I thought I was giving him a chance. He was incompetent and could not pick things up quickly enough. So my bias was personal but it was still there and I only really understood it after I messed up.

Not really what I was talking about... but yes: hiring someone because he reminds you of yourself could easily be discriminatory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Qualifications is not a black/white question. There is group fit, technical knowledge, learning ability and trust to name just 4.

When I hired people, we had the candidates in for a group interview. A qualification was that we all felt comfortable working with the person and believed that the new hire would not be disruptive.

And when hiring someone, current knowledge had to be balanced against how someone learned new things. A technically less qualified person with great learning ability was a better hire than someone who knew quite a bit but had trouble as it became obsolete.

And trust was a critical question. If I felt I could not trust someone, they were not hired.

"Group fit" is often a codeword for discrimination.

A candidate might not be a great fit socially with an existing team for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability or how well they'll perform in their job. Differences in age or cultural background can mean that the new person doesn't get the pop culture references of the existing staff. Someone whose first language isn't English might not get their co-worker's jokes.

Terms like "group fit" can be used as cover for employers who haven't taken steps to make their workplaces inclusive.

 

[sun rise]

"Group fit" is often a codeword for discrimination.

True, it can and sometimes is. In our case, it wasn't as we had men, women, whites, ethic minorities etc.

And I'm reminded of a lesson I learned about how it sometimes can work in a positive way when I was interviewed for a job once. We met at a restaurant where the manager introduced me to his gay partner (and this was way before gay marriage, the closet was still pretty full) to see if I had a problem working for a gay guy. The conversation moved to the two of them wanting a kid with the help of a lesbian who would carry the baby and my asking about how they were going to decide which would be the sperm donor and how the legal aspects would be handled.

(Job interviews can be fun!)