Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, everything SHOULD NOT be merit based as you define merit. Merit is whatever the hell the arbiter of said prize says it is.
That's life in the real world. I know you don't believe it, but you aren't the best qualified person for your job. Why shouldn't they fire you and hire someone who's even better?
I mean, gimme a break.
I am sure you could say the same thing with Olympic game then!
A business should always hire the best people it can find.
And that description will vary from one hiring manager to the next.
I've been far happier with employees when I look at other factors than I have been when hiring the most qualified, yet many would have defined the best people as those who had more years of experience.
Because schools and companies look at various factors in admissions and hiring, not just scores or performance, whereas with teams you're looking solely at performance.
If companies hired only the best of - average people wouldn't have jobs.
You're acting coy here, as though you don't understand, and it's silly.
If only top players get to play, average people won't be able to go to any Olympic Games.
And that description will vary from one hiring manager to the next.
I've been far happier with employees when I look at other factors than I have been when hiring the most qualified, yet many would have defined the best people as those who had more years of experience.
Yes, it would be but as long as the hiring manager is not hiring based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or religious believe, I don't see any problem.
Yes, it would be but as long as the hiring manager is not hiring based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or religious believe, I don't see any problem.
Even if they did hire on those basis, you wouldn't have a problem with it because you wouldn't know.
I wasn't the best qualified for my position, but I was better connected than the guy that was. And he was a LOT better qualified.
And that description will vary from one hiring manager to the next.
Presumably work performance has a couple more dimensions (education, experience, accomplishments, interview results, new ideas brought to the table, quality of portfolio, etc.) than your results in the 40 meter dash. Yet hiring managers should always hire the BEST they can find, when weighing those dimensions.
If you're including "diversity" in your determinations you're introducing mitigating factors that may move you away from hiring the best you can find.
Also, "jobs" are more plentiful than spots on the US Olympic Team, so the idea that if you only hired the best you could find that most people wouldn't get jobs is misleading.
Presumably work performance has a couple more dimensions (education, experience, accomplishments, interview results, new ideas brought to the table, quality of portfolio, etc.) than your results in the 40 meter dash. Yet hiring managers should always hire the BEST they can find, when weighing those dimensions.
If you're including "diversity" in your determinations you're introducing mitigating factors that may move you away from hiring the best you can find.
Also, "jobs" are more plentiful than spots on the US Olympic Team, so the idea that if you only hired the best you could find that most people wouldn't get jobs is misleading.
I liked John Carmack's answer here:
Average people might not get the jobs they want if companies only hired what some might consider the best.
I don't intentionally hire for diversity. I'm in a large enough city where the best, as I define it, can come in any color or age, etc. My department has always included a large number of minorities.
I look at too many factors to mention. Time spent at jobs, growth within each job, correct grammar is extremely important to me - particularly for client-facing positions, energy levels, confidence, personality, etc.
Many would suggest the guy or gal who walks in with a 4.0 from an Ivy League school and the most years of experience is the best. Not necessarily.
Even if they did hire on those basis, you wouldn't have a problem with it because you wouldn't know.
I wasn't the best qualified for my position, but I was better connected than the guy that was. And he was a LOT better qualified.
That's life.
But hiring based on skin color is OK?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
