2 ms·

Because I will always elect to treat people as individuals.

by lwhi 16y ago

philwelch 16y ago
It's a nice sentiment, to be sure...but not a realistic way to live, even if you do as much as vote or invest money. You have to treat large groups of people as large groups of you deal with them at all.
- lwhi 16y ago
  It's not just a nice sentiment though - as well as being a matter of simple courtesy, treating people based on their individual merit ensures business owners don't treat people as commodities. There's a strong business case for investing in people and treating them as valuable assets. I understand your point, but rather than sifting through 100 CVs/résumés, setting up procedures where applications are submitted using scalable processes presents a far better solution than using crude filters such as employment status. For example, if details are submitted via an electronic form, the submissions can easily be compared with a skills matrix / person specification to ensure that only relevant applications make it to the second stage of an application process.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Of course you want to treat employees as individuals. Customers, too, if you can afford it--but I'm sure that any successful consumer company can't keep your and my individual preferences in mind when designing their next product. That said, it looks like your proposed solution is still a probabilistic filter. So even by your standards you're still not treating people as individuals. Nor is it clear that your solution is any more cost-effective than the other approach.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      Well, we could play tennis all day ;) I think if we were in person, we'd probably end up agreeing. Sometimes, loyalty to an originating point leads us all up paths that aren't totally worth defending. I do however, genuinely believe that there's something bad about making generalisations. We all do it, I know - but in the workplace, when and if we're in a position to make a difference, we should.

Because I will always elect to treat people as individuals.

by lwhi 16y ago

Because I will always elect to treat people as individuals.

It's a nice sentiment, to be sure...but not a realistic way to live, even if you do as much as vote or invest money. You have to treat large groups of people as large groups of you deal with them at all.

lwhi 16y ago
It's not just a nice sentiment though - as well as being a matter of simple courtesy, treating people based on their individual merit ensures business owners don't treat people as commodities. There's a strong business case for investing in people and treating them as valuable assets. I understand your point, but rather than sifting through 100 CVs/résumés, setting up procedures where applications are submitted using scalable processes presents a far better solution than using crude filters such as employment status. For example, if details are submitted via an electronic form, the submissions can easily be compared with a skills matrix / person specification to ensure that only relevant applications make it to the second stage of an application process.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Of course you want to treat employees as individuals. Customers, too, if you can afford it--but I'm sure that any successful consumer company can't keep your and my individual preferences in mind when designing their next product. That said, it looks like your proposed solution is still a probabilistic filter. So even by your standards you're still not treating people as individuals. Nor is it clear that your solution is any more cost-effective than the other approach.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Well, we could play tennis all day ;) I think if we were in person, we'd probably end up agreeing. Sometimes, loyalty to an originating point leads us all up paths that aren't totally worth defending. I do however, genuinely believe that there's something bad about making generalisations. We all do it, I know - but in the workplace, when and if we're in a position to make a difference, we should.