3 ms·

I've read all the links. Thanks. Having a larger pool to hire from is appealing (from MetaFilter), 'I hire people, and I'm interested in any avenue I can take

I've read all the links. Thanks. Having a larger pool to hire from is appealing (from MetaFilter), 'I hire people, and I'm interested in any avenue I can take to improve the quality of my applicants. I have no social justice reason to do this - I have an interest in making my applicant pool broader (in order to make hiring easier) and more qualified (in order to have more awesome employees). Currently, one way I have to do that is to make my applicant pool more diverse.' The above quote doesn't indicate hiring for diversity per se. It's a byproduct of not excluding people. Oh, and I didn't realise Farsi was gender neutral. I know someone who speaks Farsi. I'll have to ask them about it.

Mz 10y ago
My comment, later in that same discussion, is to the effect that putting any additional constraints on your applicant other than "good at the work in question" impairs your ability to get the most qualified people. In some sense, you don't need to "hire for diversity." You just need to hire the best, regardless of who they are. Seeking to The Best instead of The Best (White Middle Class American Male) will tend to be both more inclusive and raise the quality of your hires. It's a subtle distinction, but having gone back to revisit the discussion, I have started a draft for a blog post inspired by those remarks. Not sure yet where I will go with it, but I am glad you commented on it here too.