|
|
|
|
|
by andrewzah
1791 days ago
|
|
That's your personal interpretation, and in my opinion it's quite revealing. It should go without saying, but I guess it needs to be explicitly stated here: it's good to have -qualified-, diverse candidates in leadership roles. Obviously just putting some underqualified person isn't going to work out and it's a bit tautological to state this. There's nothing about "young" that automatically means "lack of experience", or "old" that automatically means "experienced". There's nothing about "more diverse candidates" that means "not qualified"- that's your personal interpretation. It doesn't mean "more qualified" either. Leadership (and really, all company roles) benefit from having different perspectives. When your perspective is from generally one group it's easy to be out of touch and just start missing the mark. |
|
You have nothing to add to my reply so you reply with a tautology and to your own defense you point it out yourself ?!
Diverse often means to accept less qualification for the sake of accomplishing diversity, unfortunately.
It's not the perspectives that matter, its execution. Did you understand this?