3 ms·
I don’t think that this formulation reflects the actual situation. Realistically you have a broad pool of near-identical performers (in a sense that your error
by ivalm 5y ago
I don’t think that this formulation reflects the actual situation. Realistically you have a broad pool of near-identical performers (in a sense that your error in judgement is similar to difference in performance) mixed with some bad performers. The goal of the company is not to hire good, but to avoid the bad. So if someone isn’t bad then it’s fine to give preference based on some diversity metric, because you are just choosing between equivalent candidates (to within your ability to objectively measure).
- kovek 5y agoThey still lose a (very) competent candidate, and that candidate will do great work elsewhere (and not for the board)
- ivalm 5y agoIf you have a fixed headcount, then forgoing one candidate for equivalent another doesn’t carry a cost. By hiring person A you would be missing out on person B, by hiring person B you would be missing out on A. The point is that the net cost is 0. So if B brings more diversity then A you should hire B. You are not (net) missing anything.