Somehow "best candidate for the job" translates far top much into "but they can't perform as well so need help" I've found.
I do find myself covering myself whenever I have to say no candidate X is just not as suited for the role and I don't care what their name/gender is.
For reference, I work with some excellent people of various combinations of gender, orientation, creed, background (unis are great for this) and frankly i just put together a big table of pros and cons to make sure every hiring I've been involved with the decision is defensible.
Yes, improving diversity is a pro, but so is 10yr+ of database management. But both get a score of 1 on the table.
If both get a "1" on the table, then can you please the explain the comparison you made to reach that conclusion (that they're both equal)?
I'm just confused as to how diversity relates to the competence of an individual/team.
I am myself considered a "minority", which I have always felt quite patronizing (let alone the fact that it's incoherent: I'm a North African arab, the US Census considers me white but Canada considers me Arab...). The last thing I want is for my achievements to be seen through the lens of Race than for what they are.
No that the table would be taking into account many factors.
Even deciding to prioritise say a certain quality or skill work out what the bast candidate is from a score of say a total of 30/40 based on their application. Then shortlist to give the top few a chance at interview.
Performance at interview doesn't reflect the choice of who is interviewed. The choice of who gets to interview can be based on many factors and if it was important to choose a certain attribute then you can base your weighting on that. Ironically the exact equivalent I have is an example of something which isn't allowed because it discriminates, it was many as a very rough example.
This wasn't meant to be exact its a very rough example of a concept and not to be taken literally. Frankly three use of metrics like this are needed to explain brain dead comments like are you sure you're not biasing against certain applicants... To which we have to show no they just don't meet certain criterion.
Actually allowing the team to reach correct diversity ratios would probably only be a "good" metric to the bosses, bosses, boss. Again never has impact at interview as the hiring decision is made by a panel. Just shows were aware our field is dominated by older white males...
As I said the example was maybe written to quickly, bit you'd be amazed at how flexible the rules are when it comes to seconding things like "brings contacts within the field", " helps promote blah" and these are usually code for something close to "nepotism" IMO and something I strongly personally discourage against, but that example is still legal so ...
For reference, I work with some excellent people of various combinations of gender, orientation, creed, background (unis are great for this) and frankly i just put together a big table of pros and cons to make sure every hiring I've been involved with the decision is defensible.
Yes, improving diversity is a pro, but so is 10yr+ of database management. But both get a score of 1 on the table.