|
|
|
|
|
by NetStrikeForce
3408 days ago
|
|
> I meant anyone already in the country and legally permitted to work, not the country you were born in. Ah, fair enough, I guess the reason is to "avoid the process of bringing someone from abroad". Sounds pragmatic enough to me. > One objective reason to favor hiring a candidate living locally over one abroad is effective communication. The less local a candidate is, the greater the chance of poor communication due to increasingly diverging dialects and cultures and a lack of knowledge about the local culture. You have just contradicted yourself; but let's bite: Even if this looks reasonable to you, it's nowhere near the problem you think it is and most of the times far outweighed by the other reasons you had to choose a non-locally-born-or-raised candidate. It also decreases diversity, which studies show is an advantage and not just a nicety. |
|
I listed that was a reason, not the only reason. Skill sets being equal, the candidate with a knowledge of the local culture will likely be the better candidate. That's not saying choose the local candidate solely because he is local. I fail to see how it's contradictory. I think we're talking about two subtlety different things. I'm talking about where someone currently resides, not where that person was born or raised.
> It also decreases diversity, which studies show is an advantage and not just a nicety.
I'm pretty sure you meant "increases diversity" because that's the popular trend. I've never comprehended why the "diversity" attribute magically makes a candidate superior. Typically, "diversity" superficially targets ethnic diversity rather than diversity in expertise, experience, or thought. Granted, those aren't mutually exclusive but they're not mutually inclusive either.