5 ms·
It's not favoritism. It's making an educated guess, educated by numerics, personal fit, but also stuff like how many chances did this person have and am I (as t
by brnt 7y ago
It's not favoritism. It's making an educated guess, educated by numerics, personal fit, but also stuff like how many chances did this person have and am I (as the hirer) able/inclined to provide one, how did the person handle adversity (may be one of the most valuable things you get into your org), and so on.
Using your estimate of what a person might do/become given a chance is not at all the same as favoritism. Favoritism is hiring people just like yourself and calling it meritocracy.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoThis strikes me as switching out one type of bias for another, with no proof of improvement as to the end result. As long as you're not breaking labor law, not a problem, but without stats showing outcome, you can't say it's objectively better.
- brnt 7y agoProof is hard because hiring is not replicable. However, doing nothing provides proof for the status quo, and if you are happy with that, by all means do not change. I am not, and will advocate for the contrary.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- weberc2 7y agoHonestly I'm having a hard time following your position. It sounds like you're making some kind of circular argument; that we should hire more women because they face discrimination. But the whole debate is about whether or not they face discrimination in the first place. Or maybe you're advocating for discrimination in general on the basis that a person's immutable characteristics informs about his/her character (their work ethic, resilience, etc) or their ideas (e.g., the black candidate will bring in new ideas on account of his race compared to the white candidate) with some degree of reliability? I think clarity would improve your posts.