Is a competency crisis in the name of diversity and equity coming? (companies, economic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That presupposes the management in place earlier in our history were good. Discrimination resulted in under and unqualified people being promoted based on being white males. Who ran the US economy during the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression? How many corporations which were around in 1900 are around today?
I agree that that happened and, as a woman, experienced discrimination decades ago because I was a woman in a "man's" field.
But two wrongs don't make a right.
Would you like to drive over a bridge that was designed by the young man I described in post #40?
What happens when people are underqualified and don't owe their positions to diversity, equity, and inclusion? What happens when qualified people who may have been overlooked gain their positions because of diversty, equity, and inclusion? What happens when generalizations and false premises distort an issue and create unwarranted outrage? What happens when the privileged majority erroneously thinks that rights and privileges are pie, and that if someone else gets a bigger slice, their slice is smaller?
Best post in this thread. This whole thread is basically started on a false premise, or at least one without any actual proof. There are incompetent or underqualified hired in positions, but here it's if they are black or a woman, or another minority then their hire was a DEI initiative. What accounts for all those incompetent white male workers? They exist because we have all experienced them. Exactly how did they get into their positions? The "good old boy" network maybe? Nepotism possibly? Or was it exclusionary policies that ensured less qualified or educated individuals would be chosen simply because they were white and male. But now if they fail to dominate, it has to be a doomed to fail DEI initiative. It's amazing and amusing to sit back and watch the outrage when privilege is at risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit
Indeed. There are paper qualifications and then there are rubber meets the road qualifications. The worship of the almighty college degree, while not looking at other skills and experience and of course common sense, is a ride down a rough road.
Today degrees are given to people who "deserve" them vs. people who actually earn them. Ditto jobs.
Again, those who think that people--cops, firefighters, EMTs, ER docs, physicians in general, pilots, traffic engineers, air traffic controllers, attorneys, computer programmers and other geek positions, coaches, teachers...you name it, the "fairness" mob demands exactly the opposite of what MLK fought for for decades.
The commie countries and other thugocracies often hand out positions of power to friends. That is not how a functioning society works. The USA of 1953 would be horrified and probably would not believe the foolhardiness and utter rubbish that's being spouted off by those with the loudest voices.
So 1953 was the golden era? A period where everyone but WASP males were openly discriminated against in education, hiring, access to financial resources, etc...The exact opposite of a colorblind society. What do you think MLK was fighting against a decade later? That's what we need to get back to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis
PREACH!!!
That is what I said almost from "Day One"! It is not fair and it is not right that minorities who are brighter and harder-working than many whites (and probably most whites) will suffer.
One of the top three bosses I had in my entire life was a black female and for a time, my kids had a wonderful black male dentist, but I absolutely 100% hate the fact that I will have a few inner misgivings if assigned a young black doctor in the future -- actually, ANY young doctor of any skin color. That is not right for me to think that way, I know, but the thought will go through my mind as to whether s/he is qualified.
So why wouldn't you just judge the individual based on their competency when dealing with you instead the color of their skin. You were able to do it before, but now because you feel that some DEI initiative is at play you are going to feel a certain way about them based on the color of their skin, not on the quality of their knowledge and work. Thats sounds like it's a you issue not a them issue.
The problem is that there are probably enough of the skilled ones who silently do the right thing so no one finds out someone is incompetent.
Oh yeah. A conspiracy theory that there is a stealthy competence thing going on to make bad managers look good? Most of the incompetent bosses and managers I have worked with were not of the diversity persuasion but majority status folks whose best wasn't good enough.
There seemed to be two things at work in incompetent situations. The imposter complex where the manager felt overchallenged and was sensitive about their skills and ability and perceived them to be barely sufficient. Some could learn on the job, some couldn't. Then there was the overconfident but underqualified manager who was too dumb to figure out that they had no business being a manager and were unwilling to recognize or accept help. The main defense in both cases was the blame game. Someone else was to blame for their shortcomings. When you have a very good and competent manager and then you get one of these, alarm bells should go off. Look for an exit.
What happens when we continue to give underqualified people positions in management and other specialties that require advanced degrees in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion? What happens when progressives occupy positions in HR nationwide and push this at basically every publicly traded corporation? Should be interesting to watch.
Oh yeah. A conspiracy theory that there is a stealthy competence thing going on to make bad managers look good? Most of the incompetent bosses and managers I have worked with were not of the diversity persuasion but majority status folks whose best wasn't good enough.
There seemed to be two things at work in incompetent situations. The imposter complex where the manager felt overchallenged and was sensitive about their skills and ability and perceived them to be barely sufficient. Some could learn on the job, some couldn't. Then there was the overconfident but underqualified manager who was too dumb to figure out that they had no business being a manager and were unwilling to recognize or accept help. The main defense in both cases was the blame game. Someone else was to blame for their shortcomings. When you have a very good and competent manager and then you get one of these, alarm bells should go off. Look for an exit.
So why wouldn't you just judge the individual based on their competency when dealing with you instead the color of their skin. You were able to do it before, but now because you feel that some DEI initiative is at play you are going to feel a certain way about them based on the color of their skin, not on the quality of their knowledge and work. Thats sounds like it's a you issue not a them issue.
Oh but there is and the SEC is mandating quota's for companies now... 2 "diversity" board members and full disclosure of DEI employees to be done by this year.
Best post in this thread. This whole thread is basically started on a false premise, or at least one without any actual proof. There are incompetent or underqualified hired in positions, but here it's if they are black or a woman, or another minority then their hire was a DEI initiative. What accounts for all those incompetent white male workers? They exist because we have all experienced them. Exactly how did they get into their positions? The "good old boy" network maybe? Nepotism possibly? Or was it exclusionary policies that ensured less qualified or educated individuals would be chosen simply because they were white and male. But now if they fail to dominate, it has to be a doomed to fail DEI initiative. It's amazing and amusing to sit back and watch the outrage when privilege is at risk.
Some points:
A very specific example. I just timed out of a board position per a medium sized but closely held bank. Years ago the president (in order to adhere to new Federal Reserve rules) made it clear he wanted a board less full of old white people. So we added six seats over three years. All went well until the last two seats were filled. We had two outstanding male AA candidates up for the final two slots. Both these guys are dynamic, very - very well educated, successful etc. Two females, an AA and a Latina (her term)........neither was close to either of the men in persona, success/accomplishment, financial skills etc. etc. Upon discussions with our law firm we were more or less told, "in order to play it safe we needed to add one of the men and one of the women." FWIIW the board was already nearly 50% female. FWIIW-2, we had two outstanding white female candidates who had no shot.
So in the end we most certainly brought on a much lesser candidate over others for DEI reasons.
A friend owns a very successful distribution company.........his HR director retired suddenly per health reasons. He and others in his company whittled down candidates to a final five ranked 1 through 5 on the merits. Number 4 was an AA person........his law firm made it clear without writing anything down that he needed to hire #4.
Until recently I had several hundred employees.........I've done it myself.
You all are straight up deluding yourselves if you believe these kinds of decisions are not made continuously.
_____________
Another way to look at this is via proxy. The Association of American Medical Colleges publishes medical school inbound and completion metrics by race and has for a long time. Mean AA inbound academic metrics are substantially lower than the overall mean (lower GPA, much lower MCAT scores {AA admitted MCAT scores are 10+ points lower than the same for whites or Asian cadres}). And the yield should not be surprising. Speaking in percentages, twice+ as many AA students drop out as white students. Roughly twice as many AA students require 5 years to graduate relative to white students. Roughly twice as many AA students require 6 years to graduate relative to white students. Not quite twice as many AA students as whites fail the USMLE twice, that's an automatic DQ from most medical schools. AA students fail to match into any residency at much higher rates than whites and AA students that match are much more likely to match into less competitive residencies.
Turning this around a little, my son is a neurosurgeon when he was in medical school one of his mentors was a young AA oncologist who was all of a fantastic clinician, a prolific researcher and an academic doctor. I'm going to falsify this to not ID the guy but his academic progression was as good as Harvard UG, Duke Med., Stanford residency, Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson cancer fellowship. This guy's big bother was wondering if everyone he meets thinks he's a mercy admit?
Excuse the typos no glasses.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
