Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

Stevo_666

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

Well exactly. Anyone who thinks they can chuck accusations of racism around like confetti is seriously naive. And quite brave in some situations.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

Well exactly. Anyone who thinks they can chuck accusations of racism around like confetti is seriously naive. And quite brave in some situations.

I don't think anyone is advocating chucking accusations around like confetti. And certainly not in a professional/corporate context, which is what the article was talking about. Equally nobody mentioning the R word because you don't want anyone to lose their job is probably not helpful either. A bit more training might avoid the cases of overreaction you highlighted the other day as well as helping people think about what they say and do in the first place.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

Well exactly. Anyone who thinks they can chuck accusations of racism around like confetti is seriously naive. And quite brave in some situations.

I don't think anyone is advocating chucking accusations around like confetti. And certainly not in a professional/corporate context, which is what the article was talking about. Equally nobody mentioning the R word because you don't want anyone to lose their job is probably not helpful either. A bit more training might avoid the cases of overreaction you highlighted the other day as well as helping people think about what they say and do in the first place.

There is at least person who some would say has chucked the accusation around quite liberally on here, shall we say.

john80

So who on hear thinks that the sprinter got stopped because the police are racist or maybe it was something to do with their driving. Police claim wrong side of the road and then taking off when the blues and twos go on. Bodycam footage has been reviewed and police say cops in the right. Sprinter claims they were not on the wrong side of the road and did not take off. Who is lying through their rear? Maybe this is the future of race relations where the police dont stop black people. Worked well in Rotherhan till the poo hit the fan.

rjsterry

john80 said:

So who on hear thinks that the sprinter got stopped because the police are racist or maybe it was something to do with their driving. Police claim wrong side of the road and then taking off when the blues and twos go on. Bodycam footage has been reviewed and police say cops in the right. Sprinter claims they were not on the wrong side of the road and did not take off. Who is lying through their rear? Maybe this is the future of race relations where the police dont stop black people. Worked well in Rotherhan till the poo hit the fan.

Really don't think that's comparable. Neither of us have much to go on bar the news reports so who knows? If the claim of the number of times he has been stopped, or the guy on his way home from a TV interview (window smashed; had to collect his smashed up car from the police pound the next morning despite being released without charge), and other examples on the local news, then that certainly is starkly at odds with my experience of the Met.

DeVlaeminck

If video footage exists then I'd much rather we got to see it - I mean they aren't averse to allowing film crews to video traffic stops for daytime TV shows.

ballysmate

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

Well exactly. Anyone who thinks they can chuck accusations of racism around like confetti is seriously naive. And quite brave in some situations.

I don't think anyone is advocating chucking accusations around like confetti. And certainly not in a professional/corporate context, which is what the article was talking about. Equally nobody mentioning the R word because you don't want anyone to lose their job is probably not helpful either. A bit more training might avoid the cases of overreaction you highlighted the other day as well as helping people think about what they say and do in the first place.

There is at least person who some would say has chucked the accusation around quite liberally on here, shall we say.

Hoos dat then?

rick_chasey

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

You didn’t read the rest of this, did you?

nickice

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

You didn’t read the rest of this, did you?

I did but your behaviour on here doesn't align with the views you claim to hold.

rick_chasey

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

You didn’t read the rest of this, did you?

I did but your behaviour on here doesn't align with the views you claim to hold.

If you’d read it you’d have seen that I answer the point you raise.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

Well exactly. Anyone who thinks they can chuck accusations of racism around like confetti is seriously naive. And quite brave in some situations.

I don't think anyone is advocating chucking accusations around like confetti. And certainly not in a professional/corporate context, which is what the article was talking about. Equally nobody mentioning the R word because you don't want anyone to lose their job is probably not helpful either. A bit more training might avoid the cases of overreaction you highlighted the other day as well as helping people think about what they say and do in the first place.

There is at least person who some would say has chucked the accusation around quite liberally on here, shall we say.

Hoos dat then?

Does corona affect reading comprehension?

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Slight detour. A thought provoking article (as a lot of them are) from Tom Chivers on problems with unconscious bias training.

https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-do-we-spend-millions-on-bs-tests/

In short, it's not that such biases don't exist - that's well documented - but that the test used to measure them is unreliable on an individual basis and so nobody really knows whether the training offered to businesses to overcome these biases actually works or not.

Be interested in your take on this @rick_chasey as I think you have got involved with this before.

Yeah he's right.

There are various initiatives in the more forward thinking parts of the corporate world to make it easier to talk about race in the work place (in the context of improving diversity to make it more representative, of course).

There is absolutely a problem in that if say, you or your firm scores badly in whatever test they decide to do (and I agree any testing is of very limited use, but go with me for the argument), then somehow your firm is 'racist', and carries all the associated stigma.

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

So, Mr boss, in hindsight your hiring process led to a lot of unconscious decisions that naturally favoured non-diverse candidates. That doesn't mean Mr boss is racist, but that his actions unconsciously steer him to less even results.

If we could get to that point, we'd be so much closer to sorting things out.

But you literally can't call someone or actions racist without people getting very upset and declaring it a slur.

Then again, I think a lot of people with ulterior motives pretend they are when they're not which makes it all very difficult.

Starky for example, is probably a lost cause, but it would have been much more powerful if the great and the good of the history world gave him a proper good schooling on exactly why his history is so old-fashioned, dated and full of misplaced assumptions.

Then the argument for him losing his job becomes one of his ability to do a good job.

Because it can have serious repercussions for someone's personal and professional life if they're thought of as racist. Also, think about what people think of when you use the term 'racist'. They certainly don't think it's because someone is unconsciously bias.

Well exactly. Anyone who thinks they can chuck accusations of racism around like confetti is seriously naive. And quite brave in some situations.

I don't think anyone is advocating chucking accusations around like confetti. And certainly not in a professional/corporate context, which is what the article was talking about. Equally nobody mentioning the R word because you don't want anyone to lose their job is probably not helpful either. A bit more training might avoid the cases of overreaction you highlighted the other day as well as helping people think about what they say and do in the first place.

There is at least person who some would say has chucked the accusation around quite liberally on here, shall we say.

Hoos dat then?

Does corona affect reading comprehension?

It does effect some.
Stops them from being able to read anything they don't agree with.

ballysmate

"There is at least person who some would say has chucked the accusation around quite liberally on here, shall we say"

As Stevo never mentioned any name. who do you think he meant?
Just for the benefit of those with comprehension difficulties, you understand.

nickice

ballysmate said:

"There is at least person who some would say has chucked the accusation around quite liberally on here, shall we say"

As Stevo never mentioned any name. who do you think he meant?
Just for the benefit of those with comprehension difficulties, you understand.

Owen Jones?

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

"There is at least person who some would say has chucked the accusation around quite liberally on here, shall we say"

As Stevo never mentioned any name. who do you think he meant?
Just for the benefit of those with comprehension difficulties, you understand.

It's me obviously.

So when I wrote

I honestly believe if you want to tackle racism seriously you need to be able to be on a level playing field where everyone is working towards less racism.

When you have that, you can then throw out the social baggage that comes from the term and rather than discuss racism in terms of motives (because, on that level playing field, everyone's motive is to not be), and then discuss it in terms of practical decision making and actions.

What do you, or Nick, or Stevo, think I meant when I wrote that?

ballysmate

nickice said:

ballysmate said:

"There is at least person who some would say has chucked the accusation around quite liberally on here, shall we say"

As Stevo never mentioned any name. who do you think he meant?
Just for the benefit of those with comprehension difficulties, you understand.

Owen Jones?

He would fit the bill, but I don't think he posts on here. Your comprehension skills must be as bad as mine.
We'll just have to rely on Rick to enlighten us.

TheBigBean

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

Which is why we need to be so aware of that, right?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

Which is why we need to be so aware of that, right?

It's quite tricky to recruit someone then as the objective stuff can be hard to measure. In some cases, it is possible to test the person's skills, but in a lot of jobs, it is much harder.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

Which is why we need to be so aware of that, right?

It's quite tricky to recruit someone then as the objective stuff can be hard to measure. In some cases, it is possible to test the person's skills, but in a lot of jobs, it is much harder.

That's why you get professional recruiters in to help rather than doing it yourself.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

Which is why we need to be so aware of that, right?

It's quite tricky to recruit someone then as the objective stuff can be hard to measure. In some cases, it is possible to test the person's skills, but in a lot of jobs, it is much harder.

That's why you get professional recruiters in to help rather than doing it yourself.

Just to drive you crazy, how are you going to measure objectively whether they can do the job that you don't know...

For what it is worth, I'm very happy with my objective recruitment strategy. Less happy with my colleagues' approach.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

Which is why we need to be so aware of that, right?

It's quite tricky to recruit someone then as the objective stuff can be hard to measure. In some cases, it is possible to test the person's skills, but in a lot of jobs, it is much harder.

That's why you get professional recruiters in to help rather than doing it yourself.

Just to drive you crazy, how are you going to measure objectively whether they can do the job that you don't know...

For what it is worth, I'm very happy with my objective recruitment strategy. Less happy with my colleagues' approach.

There are lots of different techniques you use. There isn't one thing you do, it's a bag of various tools that, in aggregate, help.

I know everyone thinks of recruitment as transactional but some firms actually do work quite hard to refine what they do and make it more valuable.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

Which is why we need to be so aware of that, right?

It's quite tricky to recruit someone then as the objective stuff can be hard to measure. In some cases, it is possible to test the person's skills, but in a lot of jobs, it is much harder.

That's why you get professional recruiters in to help rather than doing it yourself.

Just to drive you crazy, how are you going to measure objectively whether they can do the job that you don't know...

For what it is worth, I'm very happy with my objective recruitment strategy. Less happy with my colleagues' approach.

There are lots of various techniques you use. There isn't one thing you do, it's a bag of various tools that, in aggregate, help.

I know everyone thinks of recruitment as transactional but some firms actually do work quite hard to refine what they do and make it more valuable.

assuming your company walks the walk do they employ a quota system?

was it hard to achieve diversity and is it getting easier?

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

Which is why we need to be so aware of that, right?

It's quite tricky to recruit someone then as the objective stuff can be hard to measure. In some cases, it is possible to test the person's skills, but in a lot of jobs, it is much harder.

That's why you get professional recruiters in to help rather than doing it yourself.

Just to drive you crazy, how are you going to measure objectively whether they can do the job that you don't know...

For what it is worth, I'm very happy with my objective recruitment strategy. Less happy with my colleagues' approach.

There are lots of various techniques you use. There isn't one thing you do, it's a bag of various tools that, in aggregate, help.

I know everyone thinks of recruitment as transactional but some firms actually do work quite hard to refine what they do and make it more valuable.

assuming your company walks the walk do they employ a quota system?

was it hard to achieve diversity and is it getting easier?

Well this diverse product is something i've been developing with help from others, and it has taken a while and a lot of arm twisting to get the firm to take it seriously, both externally and internally.

After more or less universal complaints from the entire cohort under 30 about the lack of internal diversity, the board listened and have now put in various processes in place to help that.

So, no, the firm doesn't have the gait of a diverse firm, but it is learning to walk that way, to continue the analogy.

No quotas for hiring but there are quotas for shortlists.

DeVlaeminck

Rooney rule type thing then. Have you met much resistance to that within the company and do you think it being accepted is for commercial reasons or because it's the "right thing" ?

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

Rooney rule type thing then. Have you met much resistance to that within the company and do you think it being accepted is for commercial reasons or because it's the "right thing" ?

Let me stop you there. It is not like the Rooney rules as the processes to hire junior staff, support staff, middle management and senior management are all different.

All firms should be interested in a more diverse workforce as there is reams and reams of hard, measurable evidence to suggest, all other things being equal, diverse firms perform better - as in, make more money.

The commercial imperative is there so it’s firms who are hiring who want diverse short lists and long lists.


In case it is not obvious this isn’t a bunch of world recruiters foisting their processes onto firms.

There is a huge demand for more diversity in firms, recruitment is a part of that (but not the only part by any stretch) and lots of firms are responding to that demand.

blazing_saddles

TheBigBean said:

Aren't interviews and recruitment almost entirely about unconscious biases?

Not at the BBC for one. They employ a quota system which they launched 4 years ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity

https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/production/articles/diversity

Which in the light of recent events, has been updated.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53135022

So following the modern trend of producing tv drama by numbers, rather than productions based on merit and quality.
Plus lots more "modernising" and re-casting of the classics.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Rooney rule type thing then. Have you met much resistance to that within the company and do you think it being accepted is for commercial reasons or because it's the "right thing" ?

Let me stop you there. It is not like the Rooney rules as the processes to hire junior staff, support staff, middle management and senior management are all different.

All firms should be interested in a more diverse workforce as there is reams and reams of hard, measurable evidence to suggest, all other things being equal, diverse firms perform better - as in, make more money.

The commercial imperative is there so it’s firms who are hiring who want diverse short lists and long lists.


In case it is not obvious this isn’t a bunch of world recruiters foisting their processes onto firms.

There is a huge demand for more diversity in firms, recruitment is a part of that (but not the only part by any stretch) and lots of firms are responding to that demand.

What do you mean by diversity? For me, I'm not sure to be meaningful it has much to do with race and gender.

rick_chasey

By background (gender, ethnicity, sexuality, disabilities, education, socioeconomic etc) but also “thought” diversity.


People with different backgrounds often have different perspectives, so one usually follows the other.

Jeremy.89

Genuinely interested in how varying educational backgrounds is implemented in organisations that more or less require an advanced STEM degree for an entry level position?

Or is it only really applicable for organisations that have a wider range of skills.