3 ms·
Implicit in your comment is that it's unlikely to hire a woman or member of another under represented population who is the best. Aside from that, nobody hires
by sidlls 9y ago
Implicit in your comment is that it's unlikely to hire a woman or member of another under represented population who is the best.
Aside from that, nobody hires the absolute best possible candidate for every job, or even most jobs. Most jobs have a sufficient number of candidates that there are multiple "bests" from the choices, with different strengths and weaknesses. It isn't at all unimaginable that one of these bests in every set of candidates is from an under represented population.
- camus2 9y ago> Implicit in your comment is that it's unlikely to hire a woman or member of another under represented population who is the best. I have never said that. It is you who is saying that. Furthermore I'm black myself so I've been in these situations enough to know that most organizations who do things like that are just using people like me as marketing ploy. I'm eager to know whether these "hires" are paid as the exact same salary as their counterparts.
- sweden 9y agoFocusing only on one gender will take your attention away from the other. You will be automatically reducing your pool of talent just to make some numbers look good. So no, you will not be hiring the best talent that way since it can be on both sides and you won't know which one.
- pwinnski 9y agoSince so many companies have people who think like this, and overwhelmingly hire men by default, there are many women out there that are far better than average, and yet unhired. In my experience, it's more likely to find the best candidate among women, where they've been overlooked by hiring managers unwilling to examine their innate biases.
- sweden 9y agoThink like what? Your reply didn't make sense in reply to mine.