Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

rick_chasey

Jeremy.89 said:

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.

Try hiring people who didn’t go to boarding school?

Its always industry specific - if you’re trying to hire the best footballers for Man Utd men’s team you’re gonna be limited by age and gender right?

Similarly you’re not gonna get many professors at uni who don’t have degrees are you?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

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.

That's fine, but how do you get that information? I'm fairly sure that legally you shouldn't be basing decisions on some of it.

For example, let's say I work in an office full of married people with kids. I decide that adding some diversity by hiring single childless people or some gay people would really help, I'm not sure I really get to make that decision.

Or are you saying that the recruitment process, rather than an individual case, should be changed so that the answer isn't always someone married with kids? That might work well with large companies, but not with small companies who don't do enough hiring.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

That's fine, but how do you get that information? I'm fairly sure that legally you shouldn't be basing decisions on some of it.

For example, let's say I work in an office full of married people with kids. I decide that adding some diversity by hiring single childless people or some gay people would really help, I'm not sure I really get to make that decision.

Or are you saying that the recruitment process, rather than an individual case, should be changed so that the answer isn't always someone married with kids? That might work well with large companies, but not with small companies who don't do enough hiring.

I won’t go into various GDPR rules but you can collect the info, in different ways.

In small companies you would approach recruitment differently, not least as there are different priorities when hiring.

You obviously can only hire the best person *for the company* but that is broad church.

You may not discriminate *against* anyone with a protected characteristic is the law.


As for your children with married example you specifically can’t ask for that....They’re the only two!

The rest you can ask...if it’s relevant to the job. Eg a guy in a wheelchair is gonna struggle to be a front line fireman.

DeVlaeminck

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.

It is a "Rooney rule thing" in the way you described it - "quotas for shortlists" - that is what the Rooney rule is .

I wasn't making a criticism though and haven't suggested it is a case of recruiters foisting anything on firms so no need to be defensive. I was simply interested in how this was accepted - I was actually thinking of within your own company not with your clients given you mentioned "arm twisting".

Jeremy.89

rick_chasey said:

Jeremy.89 said:

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.

Try hiring people who didn’t go to boarding school?

Its always industry specific - if you’re trying to hire the best footballers for Man Utd men’s team you’re gonna be limited by age and gender right?

Similarly you’re not gonna get many professors at uni who don’t have degrees are you?

True, and I guess to answer my point further, there's always people who didn't go to uni straight out of a levels etc. I was probably being a bit short sighted in my view of what, education background meant.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Try hiring people who didn’t go to boarding school?

I was relatively old when I discovered that there was a sufficiently large number of people who went to boarding school for that to be a thing. Still don't really get it.

Pross

Recruitment is difficult. In the time I've been responsible for carrying out interviews, probably around 8 or 9 years now at 3 different companies (2 small and 1 big) I've only had CVs from 2 black candidates come across my desk (which probably shows a problem in the industry). I interviewed both, the first apparently had a relevant degree from a Nigerian university but seemed to know absolutely nothing about the work he would need to be doing so was rejected on that basis. However, I would have struggled to take him on if he had the technical skills needed simply due to his English not being up to a level where I would have been confident for him to attend meetings and handle technical discussions. It would have been the same if he had be a white Polish, German or French worker with the same level of English language skills and I would expect the same if I went for a job in France with my French language ability but I think if I'd turned him down on that basis alone some people would have labelled it racist. The second candidate was black British and had no language issues, he was reasonably competent in the technical skills needed for the relatively junior role he applied for and I would have happily given him a job other than his response to 'why do you want to work for us?' was, to paraphrase slightly, my current employer makes me work hard and I was hoping it would be a bit easier working for you.

All I ever care about when recruiting is does the person have the skills (and I think language skills is a key element of that), aptitude and attitude for the level of the role and that intangible thing of will they fit into the team. I don't care if they're male, female, non-binary, black, white etc. and up until last week my team were all female in an industry that is overwhelmingly male dominated but if you don't get suitable candidates from a particular group you can't realistically employ them. I won't hesitate to interview future black candidates that meet the essential criteria of the role on the basis of the experiences I've had before as I see those as individual experiences the same as every other candidate I've interviewed.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

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.

It is a "Rooney rule thing" in the way you described it - "quotas for shortlists" - that is what the Rooney rule is .

I wasn't making a criticism though and haven't suggested it is a case of recruiters foisting anything on firms so no need to be defensive. I was simply interested in how this was accepted - I was actually thinking of within your own company not with your clients given you mentioned "arm twisting".

So senior management who are ‘of-an-age’ often don’t/didn’t think diversity is something to be concerned with.

Like any change in any firm you get people who are more resisted to change.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

Recruitment is difficult. In the time I've been responsible for carrying out interviews, probably around 8 or 9 years now at 3 different companies (2 small and 1 big) I've only had CVs from 2 black candidates come across my desk (which probably shows a problem in the industry). I interviewed both, the first apparently had a relevant degree from a Nigerian university but seemed to know absolutely nothing about the work he would need to be doing so was rejected on that basis. However, I would have struggled to take him on if he had the technical skills needed simply due to his English not being up to a level where I would have been confident for him to attend meetings and handle technical discussions. It would have been the same if he had be a white Polish, German or French worker with the same level of English language skills and I would expect the same if I went for a job in France with my French language ability but I think if I'd turned him down on that basis alone some people would have labelled it racist. The second candidate was black British and had no language issues, he was reasonably competent in the technical skills needed for the relatively junior role he applied for and I would have happily given him a job other than his response to 'why do you want to work for us?' was, to paraphrase slightly, my current employer makes me work hard and I was hoping it would be a bit easier working for you.

All I ever care about when recruiting is does the person have the skills (and I think language skills is a key element of that), aptitude and attitude for the level of the role and that intangible thing of will they fit into the team. I don't care if they're male, female, non-binary, black, white etc. and up until last week my team were all female in an industry that is overwhelmingly male dominated but if you don't get suitable candidates from a particular group you can't realistically employ them. I won't hesitate to interview future black candidates that meet the essential criteria of the role on the basis of the experiences I've had before as I see those as individual experiences the same as every other candidate I've interviewed.

Sure. Recruitment is only a small part of the puzzle

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Try hiring people who didn’t go to boarding school?

I was relatively old when I discovered that there was a sufficiently large number of people who went to boarding school for that to be a thing. Still don't really get it.

What don’t you get? Sending your kids to boarding school?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Try hiring people who didn’t go to boarding school?

I was relatively old when I discovered that there was a sufficiently large number of people who went to boarding school for that to be a thing. Still don't really get it.

What don’t you get? Sending your kids to boarding school?

Yes, that there are that many kids sent to boarding school. I previously assumed it was a few diplomats/expats.

nickice

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sexuality? I wouldn't consider that to be anyone's business and certainly wouldn't consider hiring a gay man/woman as adding diversity.

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Try hiring people who didn’t go to boarding school?

I was relatively old when I discovered that there was a sufficiently large number of people who went to boarding school for that to be a thing. Still don't really get it.

What don’t you get? Sending your kids to boarding school?

Not sure why you are surprised by TBB's remark as you called it earlier.

rick_chasey said:

People with different backgrounds often have different perspectives,

Which is pretty much confirmed for me, every time I read this thread.

rjsterry

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sexuality? I wouldn't consider that to be anyone's business and certainly wouldn't consider hiring a gay man/woman as adding diversity.

Depends on the job and the industry as Rick said. Sometimes that different point of view is useful.
There's a very good explanation of why diversity is useful and debunking the idea that that this lowers standards in Matthew Syed's book.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

ballysmate

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Shocked I am, shocked I say, that you managed all that without a recruiter like Rick.
I'm almost as shocked as I was when Rick revealed that it was him you were referring to in a previous post.

nickice

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sexuality? I wouldn't consider that to be anyone's business and certainly wouldn't consider hiring a gay man/woman as adding diversity.

Depends on the job and the industry as Rick said. Sometimes that different point of view is useful.
There's a very good explanation of why diversity is useful and debunking the idea that that this lowers standards in Matthew Syed's book.

Who's to say that there would be more diversity between a straight and gay man than there would be between two straight men. I hate this whole thing of treating people as groups. It's like the positive discrimination thing. If you treat people as individuals then you can see how unfair it is.

nickice

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Very well put. And Rick Chasey is, I think, a straight white man so I'll look forward to him giving up his position in order to achieve more diversity.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Little bit defensive there. Any reason why? If you have done all this then you don't need to worry too much. Not everyone is as conscientious as you, that's all.

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Shocked I am, shocked I say, that you managed all that without a recruiter like Rick.
I'm almost as shocked as I was when Rick revealed that it was him you were referring to in a previous post.

Bally, to be fair I did it with the help of professional recruiters, but maybe not ones like Rick. They saw their job as finding me the best people to interview, rather than educating me on how get a diverse workforce and how to avoid subconscious bias. Because I already know how to do those things.

Stevo_666

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sexuality? I wouldn't consider that to be anyone's business and certainly wouldn't consider hiring a gay man/woman as adding diversity.

Depends on the job and the industry as Rick said. Sometimes that different point of view is useful.
There's a very good explanation of why diversity is useful and debunking the idea that that this lowers standards in Matthew Syed's book.

Who's to say that there would be more diversity between a straight and gay man than there would be between two straight men. I hate this whole thing of treating people as groups. It's like the positive discrimination thing. If you treat people as individuals then you can see how unfair it is.

Exactly. I look at the individual, the person, the professional and whether they will be good for the job and able to thrive and develop in the organisation. They could be purple with pink spots on for all I care.

john80

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sexuality? I wouldn't consider that to be anyone's business and certainly wouldn't consider hiring a gay man/woman as adding diversity.

Depends on the job and the industry as Rick said. Sometimes that different point of view is useful.
There's a very good explanation of why diversity is useful and debunking the idea that that this lowers standards in Matthew Syed's book.

Who's to say that there would be more diversity between a straight and gay man than there would be between two straight men. I hate this whole thing of treating people as groups. It's like the positive discrimination thing. If you treat people as individuals then you can see how unfair it is.

Exactly. I look at the individual, the person, the professional and whether they will be good for the job and able to thrive and develop in the organisation. They could be purple with pink spots on for all I care.

That guy will definitely stand out as a surveilance operative😀

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Shocked I am, shocked I say, that you managed all that without a recruiter like Rick.
I'm almost as shocked as I was when Rick revealed that it was him you were referring to in a previous post.

Bally, to be fair I did it with the help of professional recruiters, but maybe not ones like Rick. They saw their job as finding me the best people to interview, rather than educating me on how get a diverse workforce and how to avoid subconscious bias. Because I already know how to do those things.

Not quite sure you’ve grasped what I was saying ( firms ask for it so you gotta provide it).

rjsterry

nickice said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Very well put. And Rick Chasey is, I think, a straight white man so I'll look forward to him giving up his position in order to achieve more diversity.

Not what it's about.

Most of us work as part of some sort of team. Largely because it's just not possible for a single individual to amass all the available skills and expertise in their area of knowledge.

Say you are setting up a team for some complex task. If you decide you want the best possible people and set a rigorous exam for applicants, the top ten scores will all be excellent individuals, but the extent of there knowledge will tend to overlap with all the other high scorers because they all took the same test, leaving some big gaps in the aggregate skills and knowledge of the team.

If the team was more diverse - not necessarily in ethnicity, but anything that is relevant to the the task - then as a team they will cover more of the skills and knowledge 'space' and so have fewer blind spots and perform better overall than the team which just scored highest in the exam.

The tricky bit is working out what the relevant factors to the task are so that you can assess whether you have the diversity you need.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Shocked I am, shocked I say, that you managed all that without a recruiter like Rick.
I'm almost as shocked as I was when Rick revealed that it was him you were referring to in a previous post.

Bally, to be fair I did it with the help of professional recruiters, but maybe not ones like Rick. They saw their job as finding me the best people to interview, rather than educating me on how get a diverse workforce and how to avoid subconscious bias. Because I already know how to do those things.

Not quite sure you’ve grasped what I was saying ( firms ask for it so you gotta provide it).

Fair enough. I'm not asking for it, for the reason above.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Little bit defensive there. Any reason why? If you have done all this then you don't need to worry too much. Not everyone is as conscientious as you, that's all.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out my positive contribution which I'm justifiably proud of - and making clear that we don't need lectures on this stuff.

Stevo_666

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sexuality? I wouldn't consider that to be anyone's business and certainly wouldn't consider hiring a gay man/woman as adding diversity.

Depends on the job and the industry as Rick said. Sometimes that different point of view is useful.
There's a very good explanation of why diversity is useful and debunking the idea that that this lowers standards in Matthew Syed's book.

Who's to say that there would be more diversity between a straight and gay man than there would be between two straight men. I hate this whole thing of treating people as groups. It's like the positive discrimination thing. If you treat people as individuals then you can see how unfair it is.

Exactly. I look at the individual, the person, the professional and whether they will be good for the job and able to thrive and develop in the organisation. They could be purple with pink spots on for all I care.

That guy will definitely stand out as a surveilance operative😀

Probably one of the PC thought police...

nickice

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey 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.

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?

Not sure how you think you can achieve that when people like yourself have made it such a massively sensitive issue and pretty much the worst thing anyone can be called. And you then think people can sit down have a nice little chat with someone over a cup of tea as to why they are racist (even if - patting them on the head - they don't really know they're doing it).

Personally I prefer to walk the walk and lead by example on this. I'm proud that I've built up my departments to be very good and diverse. I can count Brit, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Hong Kong and Iraqi nationalities in my team. White, Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern and HK Chinese are in the ethnic mix and the gender split is pretty even as well. Decent range of backgrounds and ages as well, although a degree education is generally needed for these types of jobs. The company as whole is also good in this respect.

So what I don't really need is a bunch of do-gooders assuming that sweet FA has been done and anyone of a certain generation needs 're-educating' in this area.

Very well put. And Rick Chasey is, I think, a straight white man so I'll look forward to him giving up his position in order to achieve more diversity.

Not what it's about.

Most of us work as part of some sort of team. Largely because it's just not possible for a single individual to amass all the available skills and expertise in their area of knowledge.

Say you are setting up a team for some complex task. If you decide you want the best possible people and set a rigorous exam for applicants, the top ten scores will all be excellent individuals, but the extent of there knowledge will tend to overlap with all the other high scorers because they all took the same test, leaving some big gaps in the aggregate skills and knowledge of the team.

If the team was more diverse - not necessarily in ethnicity, but anything that is relevant to the the task - then as a team they will cover more of the skills and knowledge 'space' and so have fewer blind spots and perform better overall than the team which just scored highest in the exam.

The tricky bit is working out what the relevant factors to the task are so that you can assess whether you have the diversity you need.

That's not really got anything to do with the diversity that rick chasey is talking about, though and it wouldn't be what most people would consider to be diversity. To be fair he has supported some kind of affirmative action previously.

pinno

Matthew Syed!? Annoying defensive chopper* with a 12 ft reach.
*Table tennis, before anyone says anything silly (Stevo).

rjsterry

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

Sexuality? I wouldn't consider that to be anyone's business and certainly wouldn't consider hiring a gay man/woman as adding diversity.

Depends on the job and the industry as Rick said. Sometimes that different point of view is useful.
There's a very good explanation of why diversity is useful and debunking the idea that that this lowers standards in Matthew Syed's book.

Who's to say that there would be more diversity between a straight and gay man than there would be between two straight men. I hate this whole thing of treating people as groups. It's like the positive discrimination thing. If you treat people as individuals then you can see how unfair it is.

Depends what factors you are looking at. If sexuality is relevant to the task and you need two people then absolutely the gay and straight man would be a more diverse team.

It's not about ticking off one of each so that you can say you've done it; it's about creating better teams of people for any given task.

We all belong to lots of groups and while these are not neatly defined, membership of them does condition our point of view. For example, we won't all have the same view of cycling, but we will probably all have a different point of view on road layout than people who have never ridden bikes.