What is Meritocracy / merit-based hiring? Does DEI preclude or replace merit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 75
  • Views: 1K
  • Politics 
nycfan

nycfan

Curator/Moderator
ZZL Supporter
Messages
15,351
Conceptually, merit-based hiring makes obvious sense. In my view, so does trying to create opportunities for underrepresented populations when reviewing candidates of equal merit.

This comes up in a lot of discussions, particularly with folks who insist that DEI is the opposite of merit. I'll probably regret this, but it does seem like a topic that keeps winding its way through multiple threads, so thought maybe we should focus in on what it means.
 
An example of an argument that DEI IS merit-based hiring at work:

DEI: Advancing Merit-Based Hiring That Makes Companies More Profitable And Competitive​

www.forbes.com

DEI: Advancing Merit-Based Hiring That Makes Companies More Profitable And Competitive

Despite all the hoopla against it right now, DEI is here to stay. It may go through a battle and even a name change, but the DEI philosophy will still be standing.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
"... The research and findings are clear. DEI policies and programs are what make organizations thrive in the 21st century. It’s what pulls in top-notch talent. It’s what makes business more competitive, more influential and more profitable.

... Today, DEI is a philosophy and belief—supported by evidence—that we work better when we bring together the collective intelligence of diverse thinkers, with diverse backgrounds and diverse genders, ethnicities, races, ages, abilities, etc. DEI policies and programs help to bring together diverse cultures, mindsets and perspectives for the collective good of the community that the organization, government or system services.

... When Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg halts DEI initiatives and President Trump shuts down federal DEI policies and programs, fires all federal DEI employees or blames DEI (as he did Thursday) for the FAA tragedy that killed 67 people, they demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding for what DEI is and how beneficial it’s been to making organizations more effective (not less), more responsive and innovative (not less) and more competent and profitable (not less).

... Before DEI, a person’s career success (hiring, placement, portfolio projects, raises and promotions) might not have anything to do with merit. You could solely—and immediately—be included or excluded in the candidate pool based on nothing more than your gender, race, ethnicity, age, looks, friendships, family money, etc.

DEI has been designed and put in place to prevent this when possible. But even with DEI in place, it’s too often the case that meritless considerations are used to help people get ahead in life and in their careers. By meritless, I mean circumstances that have nothing to do with performance, knowledge, skills, abilities or education such as who you know, who they know, political affiliations, family legacy programs, beauty and attractiveness, transactional power plays, etc.

DEI isn’t about quotas. This is what people get wrong. DEI is not about putting unqualified people in jobs or hiring individuals because of gender, ethnicity, race, age, sexual preference, etc. It’s about hiring individuals—because they are highly qualified—regardless of their gender, ethnicity, race, age, sexual preference, etc. And, it’s about doing so with the knowledge that many people have historically been marginalized and disregarded as suitable job candidates precisely because of these factors. ..."
 
DEI was born out of the amicus brief submitted by the military in the Bollinger case in the early 2000s. That brief described how the military addressed diversity -- namely, by recruiting harder in minority areas, reaching out to minority communities proactively, establishing good relationships with community leaders, etc.

Justice O'Connor really liked that brief. She cited it during oral argument and in her opinion in the case.

It was long assumed that this sort of diversity initiative was considered kosher, specifically because the right-wing Supreme Court said that it was. It did not view an expansion of the candidate pool as any form of advantage or favoritism in hiring. That's why and how DEI got started. Of course, as anyone who follows sports knows, tireless recruiting won't work without a good product to sell. And if minorities felt disrespected or discriminated against in the workplace, it would make recruitment more difficult. Hence the twin focus on sensitivity at work and recruitment efforts by HR.

None of this was remotely controversial. And of course, the race-baiters knew that, which is why they initially went after "critical race theory." Remember back in 21 and 22, "CRT" was all the right-wingers could talk about. CRT this, CRT that. That faded, of course, for the reason that there was actually very little CRT around, especially in corporate America. So DEI became the new CRT. By then the white population had been worked into such a tizzy that they were willing to swallow the idea that DEI was discriminating against them, even though they had lived in peaceful co-existence with DEI for a decade or more.
 
I don't know how anyone could be opposed to the concept of DEI in principle. I do understand that corporate DEI programs can be awkward, clunky, ineffective, and an inefficient use of time and resources that accomplish little if anything tangible. But that is different, in my mind; just because the programmatic implementation of a concept is poor doesn't mean that the actual concept itself is poor.
 
These people are either ignorant or lying. DEI is not just about meeting a quota. It's about making sure you have a diverse workforce of QUALIFIED people, and make a point to hire QUALIFIED people of all genders, races, gender identity, and sexual preference instead of choosing straight white men for every job. It's about respecting everyone and not just those that live inside a bubble where they only want to deal with straight white Christians.
 
CFordUNC said:
I don't know how anyone could be opposed to the concept of DEI in principle. I do understand that corporate DEI programs can be awkward, clunky, ineffective, and an inefficient use of time and resources that accomplish little if anything tangible. But that is different, in my mind; just because the programmatic implementation of a concept is poor doesn't mean that the actual concept itself is poor.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Corporate programs give the effort such a bad name, but the spirit of the programs are needed.
 
TullyHeel said:
These people are either ignorant or lying. DEI is not just about meeting a quota. It's about making sure you have a diverse workforce of QUALIFIED people, and make a point to hire QUALIFIED people of all genders, races, gender identity, and sexual preference instead of choosing straight white men for every job. It's about respecting everyone and not just those that live inside a bubble where they only want to deal with straight white Christians.
Click to expand...
It's really not about hiring. It's mostly about recruitment. To a lesser extent, it's about examining job requirements to see if they are actually necessary.

For instance, Kamala promised on the campaign trail -- in yet another example of the media never covering what she actually proposed -- that the government remove college diploma requirements from many jobs that don't require them. For instance, coding jobs. High level computer science jobs really do require a college education with a computer science focus. Most coding jobs, though, require little to no formal education at all. The best programmer I ever managed was a guy from Australia who never attended college. And yet you'll often see degree requirements on these kinds of jobs.

We've ALL had experience with bullshit qualifications, right? You apply for a job that not only lists A, B and C as requirements, but the description continues with "the ideal candidate will also have experience with D and familiarity with E and F." Then you get the job and find out that only A and B were required and the rest was aspirational bullshit.

Anyway, when jobs are listed with bullshit qualifications, that often impedes the hiring of underprivileged people of all races and disproportionately minorities.
 
nycfan said:
BTW, some of my confusion about how opponents of DEI seem to think that strict merit-based hiring is the opposite of DEI is nicely represented in this particular tweet:

Click to expand...


Has she seen the collection of miscreants Daddy Trump has surrounded himself with?
 
I definitely see the value of hiring a diverse workforce. For example, somebody that grew up in a Hispanic household is probably going to have their finger on the pulse of Hispanic culture more than someone that didn't. That means that they very well could design products better to meet that market or sell better to meet that market And even if they're the ones in IT or accounting, they could give their non-hispanic colleagues more insight into that culture. And you certainly wouldn't want to cut out more than half your hiring options because you only want to hire white guys. The best managers and companies are going to recognize that and out compete the ones that don't.

I think being required to hire a minority or a woman candidate over someone else is the real problem. It's racist, misandrist and people recognize it. And certainly it's a problem for the person that got discriminated against but also the problem for a minority or a woman that got the job based on merit.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I definitely see the value of hiring a diverse workforce. For example, somebody that grew up in a Hispanic household is probably going to have their finger on the pulse of Hispanic culture more than someone that didn't. That means that they very well could design products better to meet that market or sell better to meet that market. And you certainly wouldn't want to cut out more than half your hiring options because you only want to hire white guys. The best managers and companies are going to recognize that and out compete the ones that don't.

I think being required to hire a minority or a woman candidate over someone else is the real problem. It's racist, misandrist and people recognize it. And certainly it's a problem for the person that got discriminated against but also the problem for a minority or a woman that got the job based on merit.
Click to expand...
DEI, at its core, is based on the premise "We should put more effort to recruit qualified candidates from marginalized (groups that are traditionally underrepresented in this field) communities." It is not "We have to hire x number of Y people."

I would even be okay with "If there are two equally qualified candidates, tie goes to the person from the underrepresented group."
 
DISCLAIMER: I know there are still misogynists, philogynist, racists of all colors, xenophobes, transphobes, etc in the country and some of them are in positions to hire people.

DEI, in my opinion, puts attention onto characteristics, like race, gender and sex, that are irrelevant when hiring and promoting. Putting attention on those irrelevant characteristics is the opposite of what we should be doing.
 
Last edited:
The way DEI functions in the California higher education system isn't about hiring or recruitment at all. I guess it's different for private industry, but here it's all about providing (and prioritizing) resources for students who need them. It's a good thing.

The trainings we have to do, though, oy. They do get tiresome, and I confess to having DEI burnout 3 or 4 years into it.
 
roostra said:
DEI, at its core, is based on the premise "We should put more effort to recruit qualified candidates from marginalized (groups that are traditionally underrepresented in this field) communities." It is not "We have to hire x number of Y people."

I would even be okay with "If there are two equally qualified candidates, tie goes to the person from the underrepresented group."
Click to expand...
I think more people would accept something like that, especially the first part, but at least certain aspects of DEI programs have not followed that model.
 
ZenMode said:
DISCLAIMER: I know there are still misogynists, philogynist, racists of all colors, xenophobes, transphobes, etc in the country and some of them are in positions to hire people.

DEI, in my opinion, puts attention onto characteristics, like race, gender and sex, that are irrelevant when hiring and promoting. Putting attention on those irrelevant characteristics is the opposite of what we should be doing. I don't want the President to say "I'm going to pick a black female SCOTUS justice", I want him to pick the best, most qualified person of any race, religion, gender, sex, etc.
Click to expand...
Sometimes though you do need to make a hire where at least some of those things are important so that that particular POV is represented.
 
finesse said:
Sometimes though you do need to make a hire where at least some of those things are important so that that particular POV is represented.
Click to expand...
I can see some situations where specific sex, race, etc is actually relevant to a position. For example, maybe you don't want to hire a male to run a shelter for abused women.
 
What is happening right now at the federal level is still DEI, but now it is just giving opportunities to racists and lunatics who would not normally have a chance at these positions due to the normal barriers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top