4 ms·

2 things here, I think we've argued down a path by using too many examples. My broader point is around the use of context of performance in recruitment - that

2 things here, I think we've argued down a path by using too many examples. My broader point is around the use of context of performance in recruitment - that is most often done, as you've referenced, from the perspective of parental income over and above anything else. My points around race and gender are definitely not an insinuation that someone of a particular race is from a specific socioeconomic background or location either. And again, it's not about giving undue preference to someone solely based on their protected characteristics either - in relation to the original point about how we ensure a diverse culture in an organisation, you don't get there without appreciating the context of the groups, and how they've had to perform to get there, in said organisation. In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I don't mean to just attack your argument, but I don't think "segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color" fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. If you agree contextual recruitment makes sense (which you have done), then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession.

mbrumlow 8y ago
> In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. It would make much more sense to support diversity if the top of line was boosted. Bottom of line efforts are usually employed to squeeze more cash out of the thing -- at least in a healthy company who was already running at decent margens. So it in my eyes it sounds like another tactic to exploit more out of workers. Not a good thing for the workers, awesome for the fat cats. Beyond that I am not convinced that diversity actually improves a organization over merit. Please don't take it anti diversity its just pro meritocracy. > fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. At the end of the day everybody wants special treatment, and when that special treatment can't be hand because of a feature you have no control over it never is a good feeling, unless you already feel yourself in such a superior position to take pity on those who received the special treatment. As a anecdotal, and maybe this is why I am so passionate about it. I grew up very poor. And my middle school had a program for issuing computers to low income students. The only problem was low income was not the only requirement. Upon request for one you find out the program is not offered to white students. It took me near 5 years to get my first computer that I could use for more than just a few moments in a computer lab. I had to make due with a typewriter and a calculator. You tell me why that is fair? I remember clearly they had tons of unissued laptops at the time, I walked past the stack in the computer lab every day. Again, tell me how denying somebody a public resource based off their color is fair? Now take that story and flip the requirement from can't be white to can't be black. If that rubs you wrong in any way then maybe, just maybe you could see how race based initiatives vs wealth based ounces can do more damage than good, because I am sure I am not the only person with such a story. Beyond that who are we to play god? And decide somebody's worthiness of effort -- based off skin color? History has shown what happened the last time that men did this, and it was not pretty. > then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession. I can agree, but again, it is not skin color or gender. I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often. I think part of the problem is some people what change NOW, but fail to realize any sort of change is going to take generations, at least any sort of lasting change. People have to go through the paces All of america was not always rich, and much of america is built of very hard work and grit, and only now are we just seeing the fruits of the sacrifices past generations made.
- wastedhours 8y ago
  > I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. Not quoting it wrong - it doesn't suggest that inherently, bottom line comes after top line, and thus it makes no judgement on whether it was increased by reducing costs or increasing sales. I meant the latter, but my statement didn't exclude it. > pro meritocracy In an ideal world, that's the ideal state. We just need to get there, that's the issue here. > Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. You've made an impassioned argument about positive action as a concept there, and I actually work in a marketing space around inequality from a parental income perspective so 100% appreciate the points you raise. I also went to a poor school where my teachers didn't have batteries for the clocks, and could only photocopy the exam marking scheme on one side, meaning the greatest expectation they had for us was a C grade. I do, however, think we're talking at cross-purposes, and the issues you've raised with the education system (I believe) are different from the points I've been working through about recruitment choices in later employment. Fairness is different in education (I agree with you that any kind of artificial limit on access to a decent education is a shitshow we should be ashamed of), where quality should be consistent and equitable, versus what it is when making a qualitative decision on a hire. It's not about fairness in the latter situation at all, but identifying greater potential in candidates - whether that's through raw grades or taking into account the context those grades were achieved in (which, is more often than not based on the education they achieved, but not always) I know, based on the POLAR[0] information about my school, I've been looked at through a Widening Participation/positive action lens. I wouldn't begrudge someone from another underrepresented group to be given that treatment based on another characteristic of theirs. For example, if there's a lack of men teaching primary/kindergarten in an area, then I'd be ok seeing them to be selected over a female equivalent of similar qualified status as the environment for a male primary teacher is societally harsher. > I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often. True - but if we wind it all the way to my argument up the thread about role models and success, the educational fix also comes from breaking those subcultures through example. [0] the UK's access to higher education ranking for UK areas
  - 8y ago

mbrumlow 8y ago

> In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. It would make much more sense to support diversity if the top of line was boosted. Bottom of line efforts are usually employed to squeeze more cash out of the thing -- at least in a healthy company who was already running at decent margens. So it in my eyes it sounds like another tactic to exploit more out of workers. Not a good thing for the workers, awesome for the fat cats. Beyond that I am not convinced that diversity actually improves a organization over merit. Please don't take it anti diversity its just pro meritocracy. > fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. At the end of the day everybody wants special treatment, and when that special treatment can't be hand because of a feature you have no control over it never is a good feeling, unless you already feel yourself in such a superior position to take pity on those who received the special treatment. As a anecdotal, and maybe this is why I am so passionate about it. I grew up very poor. And my middle school had a program for issuing computers to low income students. The only problem was low income was not the only requirement. Upon request for one you find out the program is not offered to white students. It took me near 5 years to get my first computer that I could use for more than just a few moments in a computer lab. I had to make due with a typewriter and a calculator. You tell me why that is fair? I remember clearly they had tons of unissued laptops at the time, I walked past the stack in the computer lab every day. Again, tell me how denying somebody a public resource based off their color is fair? Now take that story and flip the requirement from can't be white to can't be black. If that rubs you wrong in any way then maybe, just maybe you could see how race based initiatives vs wealth based ounces can do more damage than good, because I am sure I am not the only person with such a story. Beyond that who are we to play god? And decide somebody's worthiness of effort -- based off skin color? History has shown what happened the last time that men did this, and it was not pretty. > then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession. I can agree, but again, it is not skin color or gender. I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often. I think part of the problem is some people what change NOW, but fail to realize any sort of change is going to take generations, at least any sort of lasting change. People have to go through the paces All of america was not always rich, and much of america is built of very hard work and grit, and only now are we just seeing the fruits of the sacrifices past generations made.

wastedhours 8y ago
> I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. Not quoting it wrong - it doesn't suggest that inherently, bottom line comes after top line, and thus it makes no judgement on whether it was increased by reducing costs or increasing sales. I meant the latter, but my statement didn't exclude it. > pro meritocracy In an ideal world, that's the ideal state. We just need to get there, that's the issue here. > Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. You've made an impassioned argument about positive action as a concept there, and I actually work in a marketing space around inequality from a parental income perspective so 100% appreciate the points you raise. I also went to a poor school where my teachers didn't have batteries for the clocks, and could only photocopy the exam marking scheme on one side, meaning the greatest expectation they had for us was a C grade. I do, however, think we're talking at cross-purposes, and the issues you've raised with the education system (I believe) are different from the points I've been working through about recruitment choices in later employment. Fairness is different in education (I agree with you that any kind of artificial limit on access to a decent education is a shitshow we should be ashamed of), where quality should be consistent and equitable, versus what it is when making a qualitative decision on a hire. It's not about fairness in the latter situation at all, but identifying greater potential in candidates - whether that's through raw grades or taking into account the context those grades were achieved in (which, is more often than not based on the education they achieved, but not always) I know, based on the POLAR[0] information about my school, I've been looked at through a Widening Participation/positive action lens. I wouldn't begrudge someone from another underrepresented group to be given that treatment based on another characteristic of theirs. For example, if there's a lack of men teaching primary/kindergarten in an area, then I'd be ok seeing them to be selected over a female equivalent of similar qualified status as the environment for a male primary teacher is societally harsher. > I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often. True - but if we wind it all the way to my argument up the thread about role models and success, the educational fix also comes from breaking those subcultures through example. [0] the UK's access to higher education ranking for UK areas
- 8y ago