September 25, 2007
Should diversity trump ability?
I head up a small team in the financial sector, and am currently looking for an additional member. At present all six team members are male. The two strongest candidates I have interviewed are both very high-calibre, one male and one female. Of the two, the male looks slightly better on paper and seems more easygoing. I would offer him the job without more ado.
However our bank is keen on promoting women - indeed my own performance and bonus depends on this to some extent - "values diversity" is one of 15 key behaviours that I am judged against. However it is my main task to ensure that my team delivers the very best performance possible. To choose a woman just because she is a woman when there is a (slightly) better male candidate available goes against everything that I have based my career upon, and I don’t know if I have the heart to do it. What should I do?
Banker, male, 39
Participants: We don’t require names, but please provide your occupation, age and gender with your replies.
If the male candidate is only “slightly” better than really you’ve answered your own question. You say he “seems” more easygoing - that’s not to say he necessarily is. People get nervous in interviews and don’t always come across as easygoing, even if they are. If there was a massive discrepency between the two candidates then of course you’d choose the best one, but when they’re both “very high calibre” and you’ve been directed to improve your diversity then why do you have a problem choosing the woman?
Posted by: Kay | September 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentSometimes someone has to be brave to be the one to open the door…..and this time it is you. The male candidate might only look slightly better on paper because he has done more of the things that you, a male, would do. If the woman only seems slightly less capable on paper than the male, I would say that she has the potential to fly real high. One aspect of gender diversity is that women are generally less boastful than men. This woman might have said less on paper but would certainly possess other skills which she takes for granted as nothing unusual and will not sell. So long as you can visualise her delivering as part of your team, choose her over the male, and once she is in, make available to her all the training/support she needs to make her the full star you think the male candidate already is.
Posted by: Efe | September 25th, 2007 at 4:49 pm | Report this commentTake the better candidate regardless of gender. Equal rights does not imply guilt based advancement. However, if you receive more income by having a woman on the team then maybe that offsets the loss in team performance by having her on the team. If you’re really concerned about doing the right thing then don’t give special favors to either candidate… base your decision solely on who can bring the most value to the team.
Posted by: dao | September 25th, 2007 at 5:09 pm | Report this commentI know of a local couple who have identical qualifications. One is white the other asian.
They specialise in applying for jobs and sending in identical CVs. If only one is chosen for interview they threaten legal action on the basis of either sex or race descrimination. They apparently live off the out of court settlements!
What you and your company (by encouraging such behaviour) are considering is illegal and morally outrageous - you are quite rightly opening yourself up for a sex discrimination appeal if you choose the women and the man reads the FT!
If you were having a kitchen fitted in your home would you choose the person you thought would do a (slightly) lower quality job just because of gender? Of course you wouldn’t - well I hope you wouldn’t.
For goodness sake get a grip. Stop writing into agony aunt columns and hire the better person. It’s so obvious it beggars belief that you’ve attained a position to hire in the first place. If you personally suffer because of illegal company policy then sue the pants off them.
No wonder britons are fleeing this politically correct, repressive, flee hole of a country!
Posted by: Simon Hutchen | September 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pm | Report this commentUnless you have a crystal ball you’ll want to be mindful of the other ‘advice’ that is unnecessarily prejudiced.. “the woman only seems slightly less capable on paper than the male, I would say that she has the potential to fly real high”..
Stick to what you know. You know that what’s written on the paper is not well correlated to job performance. You also know that sub-system optimisation, while excellent for building a menagerie of individual high performers, is rarely the way to maximise overall team output.
If the candidates are close why not make a diversity decision to spice up the team and extract net benefit from the new influence in the team. Alternatively have a poke at the absurd policy and hire a pretty ‘deal closer’ qualifications notwithstanding.
Posted by: Reno | September 25th, 2007 at 6:13 pm | Report this commentif it’s that close, then flip a coin.
Posted by: Brillo | September 25th, 2007 at 7:57 pm | Report this commentCheck out your bias. And your motives. Go behind your own arguments, and understand why you’re holding these ‘conviction’ positions. Be decent and give the female talent a break. Summon the will to do it. It’s not a moral hazard. You just need to work at a) avoiding the ever present danger when men and women work closely in the office, that you don’t end up taking a shine to her (I’m not being facetious, it may be your unconscious resistance), b) helping to integrate her, minority that she will be, into the team, c) honing your management skills across differences (instead of managing people hired, perhaps, in your own image) and even d)letting go of your fear of what happens if/ when she ever becomes pregnant. Oh and don’t assume as an inevitability that a female hire will dilute team performance. More women and higher performance are not mutually exclusive. And talent assessment is not high science either.
Posted by: ali | September 25th, 2007 at 10:17 pm | Report this commentIn this day and age where 50% of workforce labour is composed of female workers and that the number of females in university surpasses that of males, I find it laughable that females still require ‘diversity protection’. Females professionals are outnumbering male professionals in almost every field aside from engineering. Hiring a candidate should be based on the candidates intrinsic qualities nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Amused | September 25th, 2007 at 11:14 pm | Report this commentIn this day and age where 50% of workforce labour is composed of female workers and that the number of females in university surpasses that of males, I find it laughable that females still require ‘diversity protection’. Females professionals are outnumbering male professionals in almost every field aside from engineering. Hiring a candidate should be based on the candidates intrinsic qualities nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Amused | September 25th, 2007 at 11:16 pm | Report this commentDiversity holds the potential of reducing your concentration in exposure to one type of talent. It is possible that your “less qualified” female hire thus adds more to the overall team product or output by adding a fresh view than the “more qualified but also more of the same” male hire who might only increase your exposure to one type of thinking or skill-set.
Posted by: TK, banker, male, 34 | September 25th, 2007 at 11:16 pm | Report this commentYour job is to implement company hiring policies.
These include diversity. Do not let your personal prejudices stand in the way of company policy.
Posted by: Me | September 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am | Report this commentClearly you do not value diversity in this instance. Your ambivalence is rooted in the conflict between this corporate value and your personal values. So … if you can’t hire the woman, your only honorable option is to resign.
Posted by: Gary | September 26th, 2007 at 12:32 am | Report this commentPlease go with the one you feel will merge best with the team. Since they are so similar in experience & abilities, go with your gut instinct. If still in doubt, say to your superiors that you have a stalemate and need to re-interview them, even set them a test and see which one fares better. It is true what Efe said, women are less boastful than men and there is a chance she undersold herself. If you are unsure ask them to come in again. You don’t want to be stuck with hiring one and be left with a feeling of unease that the other one would have been a better fit both in work ethic and work atmosphere.
Posted by: Lucy | September 26th, 2007 at 9:09 am | Report this commentDiversity is a red herring dreamed up by people who don’t have to survive in a competitive environment. The best candidate should get the job. Period. Businesses do not exist to “represent”, or be a “cross-section” or to be “inclusive”. They exist to produce results. Leave the other nonsense to the public sector.
Posted by: Rick | September 26th, 2007 at 9:10 am | Report this commentIf the candidates are so equal, diversity makes sense-not out of a sense of altruism, but because diversity encourages balance and balance enhances the team.
Posted by: DP Banker, 48, male | September 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am | Report this commentIf the candidates are so equal, diversity makes sense-not out of a sense of altruism, but because diversity encourages balance and balance enhances the team.
Posted by: DP Banker, 48, male | September 26th, 2007 at 9:14 am | Report this commentAre you sure you’re competent enough to be the head of a team?
Posted by: Ella | September 26th, 2007 at 9:47 am | Report this commentThink of the team. Who is a better fit for the rest of the group? At the end of the day, someone who’s easygoing with you might not be the best guy to work with for the rest of the team. Will a woman enhance productivity? Try and get a balance.
Posted by: ex-manager | September 26th, 2007 at 10:22 am | Report this commentHire the woman. Women salaries are 20% lower, which more than compensates for the “slightly” lower qualifications.
Posted by: ex-manager | September 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am | Report this commentHow depressing that the ambiguous, weazle term “values diversity” is used a criterion for judging the questioner’s performance. I am assuming that this is a UK bank in question, as this country seems to specialise in gutless, backdoor quotas (de jure quotas such as demanded by that odious euphemism “affirmative action” still, thankfully, being taboo here), cultures of fear and sweeping, albeit tacit, accusations of bigotry against anyone who recruits or has any authority.
When women were given the vote after centuries of disenfranchisement, did anyone seriously suggest they be given two or fifty votes each by way of compensation for the historical wrong? Of course not. The goal is equality, not inflicting the formerly oppressed inflicting the same injustice on the former oppressors.
I believe the questioner must make a stand against this obscene injustice (encouraging employment on anything other than merit, such as perceived historical or contemporary injustices suffered more by members of certain groups on average). Even if it means sacrificing some bonus.
Do not let the intellectually bankrupt PC Stasi bully you. Pick the better candidate.
Posted by: Patrick | September 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am | Report this commentThe fact that women’s salaries are on average lower is a complete irrelevance here, a deliberate muddying of the water to foster a sense of generalised resentment: just as collective punishment is wrong, so too is collective reward (which is in effect a collective punishment for the other groups that do not get rewarded, in this case, men).
Where there is evidence of sexism, of women being paid less than male colleagies for identical work and performance, of course this injustice should be redressed through the courts if necessary. Sue the pants off them.
But the fact that other women have been discriminated against in different circumstances has nothing whatever to do with the current case, with one weaker (incidentally female) candidate being rejected in favour of a stronger (incidentally male) one.
This must be obvious. I’m not sure if those in favour of unfairly discriminating against the stronger male candidate are doing it through cynicism or lack of reasoning, but either way they must be ignored. Anything other than meritocracy throws us into the abyss of greivance and counter-greivance, claim and counter-claim.
Posted by: Patrick | September 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm | Report this commentHow exactly did you rise to a management position?
The whole point of feminism is not to be patronised, but to be treated equally. If the male candidate is the better qualified of the two, pick him. I’m a female banker and I would be absolutely mortified if I thought I got my job based on the fact that I am a woman, as opposed to being the best candidate for the job. How patronised do you think the female candidate would feel if she ever found out? She would most likely think you don’t respect her abilities, but is only there for appearances sake and to make cups of tea.
Posted by: Female banker, 25 | September 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentGo for the better candidate, irrespective of gender. The incremental bonus to you for delivering higher value to the firm should be greater than the bonus foregone for lack of diversity. If it is not, you need a change of job. Or a change of country, as some seem to suggest.
Posted by: Out of the box, 42, Male | September 26th, 2007 at 1:42 pm | Report this commentHire the woman now! And plan for another two asap. If you intend to really embrace diversity, than you need to be more advanterous as a team leader. That means you need to be thinking in terms of having half your team, male and the other half female. Hiring just one woman is only the first step to show how versatile and avant-garde you are. Treat woman in your team well and you too will not regret it.
Posted by: halfmoon | September 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm | Report this commentIs the view that one candidate is slightly better than the other yours alone? Has anyone else interviewed them with you? Is there a proper job specification. It can be easier to make an objective choice (or at least an objective-looking choice) if you spell out on paper what qualities you are seeking.
All the HR literature says that interviews alone are a weak predictor of performance. Are there other selection tools (such as psychometric tests or other exercises) available in your organisation? Again, these can highlight more objective reasons for making a choice between candidates.
Posted by: Paul, accountant, 44, male | September 26th, 2007 at 4:27 pm | Report this commentRead ‘The Difference’ by Scott E. Page.
Fiona, Diversity Consultant, 36, female
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26th, 2007 at 4:44 pm | Report this commentDepends. Is she fit?
Posted by: Female, 25, Financial PR | September 26th, 2007 at 5:23 pm | Report this commentyour dilemma is that you have 2 candidates who are (approxiamtely) same calibre at this stage, irrespective of gender. yes, there is the company policy — and the impact on your bonus — but obviously the choice of candidate is not clear-cut, otherwise this would not be an issue.
this is your team — you need to be sure that you are making the right decision, and if you do not have enough material to decide, you need to find it: have one final test.
one suggestion would be:
Posted by: intrigued banker | September 27th, 2007 at 2:16 am | Report this commenti. presentation — e.g. ask them to give a client or internal comapny presentation on a case. i would suggest you provide the initial materials — and see how far they take it.
ii. involve some of your team as the panel — it shows good leadership to trust their involvement, you are a small team and the recruit needs to fit in, and they may pick up on indicators you miss.
I’m a (male) director of software development, 56. There are a number of issues. First the unquestioned raw personal greed, apparently to be gained at the expense of promoting broader targets. This says a lot about this individual and about his corporate culture. Second, is the decision on - apparently - purely paper evidence that the male is the stronger candidate. I note the point about ‘easygoing’, but in such a testosterone-ridden atmosphere, I’m not surprised that she might not seem that way. I would investigate references thoroughly for both before raising the question of which is the better candidate. After all, who wrote his CV? Third, we’re not told if she is a better candidate than existing members of the team - this could be a great opportunity to cut out some dead wood, shake things up a bit and make pulses race faster. This team sounds too clubby to be adequately motivated. Fourth, the man appears ignorant of the positive value which women can play in motivating the team. She tries harder because she believes (whether true or not) that she has work harder than a man to be treated as equal. Guys, in the presence of women at work, in my experience, generally get a wake up call and work harder. Fifth, there seems no thought of the benefits of having a woman and possibly increasing sales to female customers previously turned off by a purely male team. Sixth, in my experience, women can often bring a creative and intuitive side into a team which improves its productivity. Seventh, if the company is serious about achieving equal opportunity goals, it needs to revise its incentive structures so this kind of issue disappears. Finally, can’t the company find a better team leader, male or female, who understands the advantages of bringing female representation up to date?
Posted by: steve | September 27th, 2007 at 3:08 am | Report this commentDiversity is about how you think and act not just an issue of gender, culture and race.
Posted by: Simon | September 27th, 2007 at 9:47 am | Report this commentDiversity trumps homogeneity, yes. But performance and personality trump paper; skills diversity and skills superiority trump gender diversity; hardworking trumps easygoing; and, team performance bonus trumps gender diversity bonus.
Posted by: J Michael, private banker, 38 | September 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pm | Report this commentThe ‘benefits of diversity’ is a vague concept. I have a particular example. I hired a technical writer a year ago. She fit many stereotypes – she talked like a valley girl mixed with new age spiritualism. Fluff started showing up in our contract bids.
It turned out that there were many new clients who resonated with her style. She doubled our sales, and she is now a VP. I won’t say that I understand her perspective (and half the time, I can’t understand her), but it works.
Hire the woman.
Posted by: CEO, male, 39 | September 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pm | Report this commentYou don’t want to hire someone who is going to negatively affect your team dynamics, and if you truly feel that the male, rather than the female, will fit better with your team and increase your team’s success, then you should pick the male. The worst thing would be to choose the female against your gut instinct, and then regret it a few months down the line. Similarly, if you are going to hire the female even if you don’t really want to, you need to be careful that you don’t start to resent her and treat her unfairly which will definitely lead to problems.
However, you should really examine the drivers behind your decision and perform some self-analysis. If the result is the discovery that your are slightly discriminatory, then you should addess this and the first step would be to hire the female and welcome her into your team.
My final comment would be with regards to where your team sits in the bank: are you a client-facing team? If you are client facing, please do consider how your clients will react to having a female on your team - she may bring in lots of business that you otherwise would never has seen. In my experience, diversity is always a good thing, and bringing different experiences, different mentalities and different ways of working can only be beneficial in the long run.
But, don’t just hire the female because she is female - unless you have good business reasons to hire the female rather than the male, e.g. increased revenues, positive effect on team dynamics and team morale, different and complementary approaches to problem solving, etc, just hire the male. To do otherwise would just be stupid, regardless of any official company policy.
Financial Analyst, Female, 27.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pm | Report this commentIn relation to your firm’s positive discrimination policy, I would follow the money. If you hadn’t seen the male candidate, would you hesitate to offer the female candidate the job? If not, then it’s in your best interests, and those of the firm, to do so.
However, I agree with financial analyst that you should think critically about why you preferred the male candidate. Most of us are more prejudiced than we would like to think. I find it hard to recruit men to my teams because behavior that I would read as “enthusiasm” from a woman, I tend read as “aggression” from a man.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 28th, 2007 at 12:23 pm | Report this commentHi there,
Seems to me that those who are saying “hire the female because of x, y & z” are assuming that you have not taken into account the potential benefits of diversity (which I do believe in by the way). It seems to me that the key here is to keep focussed on the big picture and ensure that the arguments for and against diversity are included in your analysis.
If, despite considering the implications of changing mix of your team, you still feel the male is a better candidate then there is no doubt in my mind that you should recruit him.
There is another option too though. I presume you have an HR function. Why not have a chat with a representative about the most effective awy to decide on which candidate is best and invite that rep along to whatever trial may be set. This should, depending on your point of view, ensure that you make the best possible decision based on the information available / cover your **** in the event of any claim.
It would also be worth clarifying the “values diversity” part of your objectives since diversity need not only refer to gender but also age, race, sexuality, etc, etc.
It is widely accepted that measuring a person’s future performance based solely on interviews is not easy or indeed reliable but if this is all you have to go one then you must choose the person you feel is best suited for the job.
Some have given you, in my opinion, an unnecessarily rough ride on this but I appreciate your dilemna and look forward to hearing how you resolved it.
Posted by: The Other Tom | September 28th, 2007 at 1:29 pm | Report this commentWhat are you doing comparing ‘on paper’ qualifications when you’ve interviewed them? If they’re both good enough to get the job, then what you should have been doing at the interview is to get a good enough idea of their strengths and weakneses to make an assessment of who would best complement your existing team.
Send yourself on an interviewing course.
And get some good experience of managing (and interviewing) women - if you never appoint any, you’ll never get any feedback as to whether your assessment was right.
Posted by: Liz | September 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm | Report this comment.
Posted by: Richard | September 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm | Report this commentThis isn’t about diversity nor ability. This is about you not able to make a decision and the only reason you are in doubt is the inner dilemma, should I hire the woman which will benefit my paycheck or should I hire the man whom I think will better fit the team?
Posted by: Waldorf | September 29th, 2007 at 11:21 am | Report this commentMy advice make up your mind, get the one who you think will get the job done and will refresh your team.
I am mortified by the amount of fluff and nonsense here on everything ranging from diversity to values to your interviewing skills. The issue is really very simple. The bottom line is that you have been engaged by your firm to do a job and how can there be any course of action other than to get the best person for the job ?
Posted by: Out of the box, 42, Male | September 30th, 2007 at 8:05 am | Report this commentYou clearly have a good opportunity, as an inexperienced leader, to learn first hand how to make diversity in its many forms work for you when it comes to creating a successful team. Applying the rationale that you have hints at your negative style and lack of interviewing skills. You may have got where you are by being a “good” manager, but you’ll have to start contemplating how to be a good leader. Start the process by hiring any well qualified candidate who challenges the homogeneous profile your current team exhibits.
Posted by: Michael | September 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm | Report this commentImagine your daughter was turned down for a job at a small company that comprised of 7 men. Would you perhaps console her that the fact that statistically, this showed a clear indication of bias? As British Management writer Robert Heller once pointed out: Companies that discriminate will miss talent - and deserve to.”
American, male, 51, Former Small-store owner
Posted by: Dave Kastner | September 30th, 2007 at 11:56 pm | Report this commentOnly you know in your own conscience whether you are thinking of hiring the man for the wrong reasons. Diversity quotas don’t help adjust people’s attitudes. If you’re looking for the cynical answer, hire her and you’ll help your managers to be able to tell the world what an ethical organisation they run(regardless of whether they really do). If you care about your own conscience (as I think you do) examine your own attitudes to men and women and then hire the best candidate.
Posted by: Melissa | October 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm | Report this commentCurioulsy enough over the last 30 years I’ve seen an all male workforce, scinetific and engineering conusltncy, become in the recent intake more than half female.
Sadly for us blokes the women appear to be better. We have no quotas or diversity practice and old lags like me would spurn them.
If it’s a toss up as this case appears to be why not be purely self centred and assess the benefit to you of having someone who at interview was 2nd in a close race with the added benefit of getting you an improved bonus.
Posted by: Jimbo | October 3rd, 2007 at 9:12 am | Report this commentEqual opportunity laws have grand ambitions but only allow a little tinkering with appointment practice to achieve those ambitions. An all male department does seem unbalanced in the financial services industry and to avoid any question of unconscious prejudice on your part it might be a good idea to re-interview with a colleague to confirm any subjective opinions.
The principle of employee diversity is normally helpful to the development of a business and that certainly applies to a consumer financial services business. The clients are mostly split evenly between male and female except for personal wealth management where the largest sub-sector of clients is probably female and retired. If your department is predominantly youngish and male, your departmental opinion of “what the client wants” may seem patronizing to a large part of your potential market. You won’t know whether that is the case unless you can create a bit of diversity in your departmental outlook.
Posted by: Ironybrew | October 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm | Report this commenthire her:
Posted by: sergio, 36 | October 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm | Report this commenti. balancing is the natural thing and as for now your team is not that balanced in terms of gender
ii. there are many examples when female acts just like male and vice versa
My boss was in a similar predicament. The word “diversity” was used to explain the hiring of the less able female candidate. Now, after 12 months of inadequate results, I despise him and will leave the team.
Posted by: IBer, 30 | October 10th, 2007 at 10:49 am | Report this commentI suggest you promote one and sleep with the other depending on your bent. That way you, and they, get the best of both worlds.
Posted by: Peter B | October 10th, 2007 at 1:32 pm | Report this commentYour problem is that the woman candidate is, well, only a woman. What you really need is for her to be a black, Muslim, single mother with learning disabilities, preferably with a track record of having successfully kicked alcoholism and drug-taking when she was doing time for aggravated assault. You could probably retire on your huge diversity incremental bonus.
Since this appears not to be the case, perhaps you could ask her to pretend to be a lesbian.
Posted by: Stephen, consultant, 60 | October 10th, 2007 at 1:47 pm | Report this commentLoving the way all the women say hire the woman!!!
You must pick the best person for the job.
Its really that simple! If the guy is the best then pick him.
Posted by: Pete the Lawyer | October 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pm | Report this commentThe short term view is to hire the male if he is the better candidate. A longer term view is that better female candidates may not bother to apply for positions in the future if they don’t see a chance within the corporate culture. Thus, there is no right answer: it depends on the size of the institution (and its ongoing intake needs) as well as your own time/compensation horizon.
Posted by: IB, 52, male | October 10th, 2007 at 2:50 pm | Report this commentYou could kill two birds with one stone. Either hire the guy and ask him to dress as a woman, or hire the woman and ask the rest of the team to dress as women.
Have you also thought about how having a female around the place might affect team performance?
BTW is decisiveness one of the other 14 criteria?
Posted by: Jerry | October 10th, 2007 at 7:20 pm | Report this commentAsk them both back in for interviews and ask one of the other managers to interview them. The other manager might see something you have missed.
Can you imagine how the female will feel being part of team testosterone? I’ve had female friends in that situation and they don’t last long. I also know a male who was the most qualified and capable in his group of 11 (10 females, 2 males), but lasted only a year as part of team estrogen.
Posted by: consultant, 26, male | October 10th, 2007 at 10:01 pm | Report this commentThe diversity bow has many strings, only one being gender
Posted by: jim | October 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm | Report this commentWe solved our diversity challenge like this: we hired a female, overweight, non-white lesbian; that way we tick all the boxes when it comes to diversity surveys. Worth evey penny she earns.
Posted by: Nick | October 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am | Report this commentTo select the female, on this occassion would be reverse discrimination.
Selection should be made on capability and fit, not sex, race or religion yet many of the observers here seem to think it’s okay to discriminate against the better candidate. It really isn’t.
Posted by: Tad | October 18th, 2007 at 5:35 pm | Report this commentTo select the female, on this occassion would be reverse discrimination.
Selection should be made on capability and fit, not sex, race or religion yet many of the observers here seem to think it’s okay to discriminate against the better candidate. It really isn’t.
Posted by: Tad | October 18th, 2007 at 5:35 pm | Report this commentNO!! … diversity should not trump ability (just another form of rasism)…. but of course everyone should get a fair shot at the opportunities … let the best man or woman win. Go ahead and start to promote based on “diversity” … and watch your best talent (or all races and gender) walk out of the door ….
Posted by: marke | November 6th, 2007 at 11:08 pm | Report this commentWhat are people talking about: reverse discrimination, rasism (sic). What the hell? Most of you bankers hire men because you’re like them, whether you consciously think of it or not. After all if you hired a woman she might not be one of the lads and come down the pub after work and get totally wasted on champagne and whiskey. Clearly hire the best candidate, but consider the fact that you’re probably already biased towards hiring men…after all they are like you….mono cells!
Posted by: JB | November 8th, 2007 at 12:16 am | Report this comment