3 ms·

If the person being patronized was the nephew of the CEO whose hiring was assured as long as he met the minimum requirements, even if there were more qualified

by mikece 4y ago

If the person being patronized was the nephew of the CEO whose hiring was assured as long as he met the minimum requirements, even if there were more qualified applicants, would it still be viewed as man-splaining or patronizing? An unfortunate side-effect of over-sensitivity to hiring and promoting people who aren't white men is that is that, in many cases, they live with the constant nagging question of whether they got the job because of their ability or because of their demographics. Some of the most talented people I've ever worked with were self-driven to an insane degree to try to achieve the impossible goal of proving to themselves "I was hired because I'm worthy" as opposed to some other reason. It's a tragedy because these people burn themselves out and frequently harbor the fear that they are going to be "found out" at any moment and will be let go for someone who deserves their spot when the opposite case is the truth: if they were to leave it would be impossible to replace them!

janetacarr 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Sexism in the workplace is very different than nepotism. And, you contradict yourself with your example. If nephew is minimum qualified, then he's qualified, yet you go on to assume people are hired because of their demography. Hiring based solely on demography/diversity/whatever isn't a thing because it's an unprofitable decision. Businesses aren't charities.
- mikece 4y ago
  In most businesses you don't pick a minimum qualified applicant if there are superior applicants you could choose instead. Nepotism is just another way by which someone who isn't the most accomplished or best fit could be hired either because the order was given to select the candidate or out of fear that HR will come down on you for not being diverse enough. What I'm saying is that when someone is hired into a position it's not always obvious to them that it was because they were the best candidate and not just HR's demographic of the quarter. This can lead to unwarranted self-doubt (which over time can morph into self-sabotage: "I wasn't really good enough anyway"). I've had off-the-record conversations with team members on this topic over the years and in once case I was unable to communicate to her what everyone else could see plainly: she was the best contributor on the team but she still thought she was unworthy and should leave. It's heartbreaking to see this happen to someone.
  - janetacarr 4y ago
    My experience differs. I have worked at so many tech companies, and been on so many hiring panels, yet I have never seen demographic quota/quarter/whatever. Ever. I think by talking like this, people are perpetuating a myth that some 'diverse' candidates buy into.
    - mikece 4y ago
      I have worked at multiple companies where HR specifically said "we hope you're able to find a diverse applicant" but it clearly wasn't a passive hopeful statement. I sincerely hope my experience is rare. It wasn't like this at all companies where I've had a hand in vetting candidates but it has happened.

by mikece 4y ago

janetacarr 4y ago

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Sexism in the workplace is very different than nepotism. And, you contradict yourself with your example. If nephew is minimum qualified, then he's qualified, yet you go on to assume people are hired because of their demography. Hiring based solely on demography/diversity/whatever isn't a thing because it's an unprofitable decision. Businesses aren't charities.

mikece 4y ago
In most businesses you don't pick a minimum qualified applicant if there are superior applicants you could choose instead. Nepotism is just another way by which someone who isn't the most accomplished or best fit could be hired either because the order was given to select the candidate or out of fear that HR will come down on you for not being diverse enough. What I'm saying is that when someone is hired into a position it's not always obvious to them that it was because they were the best candidate and not just HR's demographic of the quarter. This can lead to unwarranted self-doubt (which over time can morph into self-sabotage: "I wasn't really good enough anyway"). I've had off-the-record conversations with team members on this topic over the years and in once case I was unable to communicate to her what everyone else could see plainly: she was the best contributor on the team but she still thought she was unworthy and should leave. It's heartbreaking to see this happen to someone.
- janetacarr 4y ago
  My experience differs. I have worked at so many tech companies, and been on so many hiring panels, yet I have never seen demographic quota/quarter/whatever. Ever. I think by talking like this, people are perpetuating a myth that some 'diverse' candidates buy into.
  - mikece 4y ago
    I have worked at multiple companies where HR specifically said "we hope you're able to find a diverse applicant" but it clearly wasn't a passive hopeful statement. I sincerely hope my experience is rare. It wasn't like this at all companies where I've had a hand in vetting candidates but it has happened.