RedEye9 wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 18:57:
How to say you don't think systemic racism is a thing w/out saying you don't think systemic racism is a thing.

100%

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 18:57:
How to say you don't think systemic racism is a thing w/out saying you don't think systemic racism is a thing.

Wouldn't you want to engage in actual conversation for once, Redeye? Instead of limiting yourself to sending links to your favorite articles and trolling people you disagree with, it would be nice to see you have a respectful discussion for once 🤭

How to say you don't think systemic racism is a thing w/out saying you don't think systemic racism is a thing.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 09:18:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
Nobody denies "merit" isn't a thing, it's just not one thing and often impossible to measure during those first impressions you get in job interviews. Is that a strong nutshell?

I think that is a fair summation of it.

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
I think we maybe talk over eachother too, because what we haven't been debating is what DEI should never be about is selecting people for a job based on something that says absolutely nothing about them, like the color of their skin. And I think this is what it all comes down to. When two people somehow show the exact same skills and impressions during an interview, but one is white and the other is black, the color of their skin should never be the deciding factor, because exactly that is racism or discrimination. The same goes for gender, if gender should mean nothing for that specific job. In this situation, you either continue to interview them until someone comes out stronger, and in an almost fictional scenario where it remains 50/50... the final selection should be picked randomly.

Except in the real world, this almost never happens. One, because humans are not robots stamped out of a mould. I have never in my life, in decades of employment, met two candidates that were identical in every way with the only difference being their phenotype. There is always one candidate, for a variety of reasons, that stands out and edges the rest of the candidates out. Always. Two, no org that purely hires based on a checklist stays in business for very long. Ideology doesn't build teams or departments that can significantly execute reliably or pivot on a dime if necessary. It doesn't provide the leadership necessary to promote growth either as an organization or encourage growth in individuals.

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
Having observed the whole DEI public opinion for a few years, I believe this is the issue, and while debating what is and isn't "merit" or how useful it is while gauging the most competent applicant is interesting, I doubt it addresses the elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room is low skill individuals, usually white and male, being butthurt because they weren't automatically granted a job based on the color of their skin or gender. You'll never hear high skill individuals screeching about DEI because they've made a career for themselves and have climbed the corporate ladder.

Though it is not always white men whining. I'll give you a real world example. About six years ago I was asked to sit in on a hiring committee due to my interviewing techniques. It is important to note that on this hiring committee I was the only person who was white and the only person who was male.

We interviewed a bunch of people that day. I gave my recommendation on a candidate and thought nothing more of it. Two weeks later, my org's lawyers contacted me and asked me about a particular candidate we elected not to hire. This individual had filed a DEI complaint with the state and was moving forward with a lawsuit. The grounds, such as they were, for their complaint was that we discriminated against her because she was black and a woman.

When she interviewed to a panel that overwhelmingly consisted of women of color. Let that sink in for a moment.

Were DEI such the rampaging force that some people whine so loudly about, she should have been an automatic shoo-in for the job, right? The reality is that she bombed that interview so hard that, after she left, one of the other panel members joked we should rename the conference room to "Hiroshima". It was epic levels of bombing an interview. Truly breathtaking to behold in hindsight.

That's why I have no time for whining about DEI from low skill people and reject the notion that "merit based hiring" is anything but a smokescreen for "I should automatically get the job because reasons". You want the job? Interview better. Demonstrate a better grasp of the array of skills necessary to do the job, not just the function of one aspect of the job itself. Learn how to write a resume that sparks interest. Learn to network so that people know your face, your name, and something about you so that you are recognized as a known quality should your name come up for an interview.

In short, grow as a human being and don't come home from your McJob (and I am not throwing shade on any level of employment here) and whine on the internet that you didn't get the CEO job for which you applied.

When you started your anecdote, I thought you were going to say the lawyered up black woman applicant was actually fit for the job but some deep rooted bias for people of color and/or women blinded you and your panel (ironically consisting of predominantly black women) to her merit. Instead, your story went the opposite direction and she was absolutely terrible.

I don't agree that the point you made was strong. I think that's because I don't believe opponents of DEI hold the idea that black women, by checking two DEI marks, automatically get the job regardless of their interview performance.

My albeit exaggerated point was that if two applicants are basically equally impressive, the deciding factor should never be their skin color or gender (naturally, unless the job specifically requires it, a simple example being a model for a specific photo shoot). I don't believe it's only white paupers who are against this DEI version of the vision at all.

ForgedReality wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 13:36:
RIP USA. It's over.

Elon thinking he can get AI to make good games means the USA is over? Uh, not following the logic there. Then again, I'm not exactly looking forward to the next four years...

RIP USA. It's over.

Musk, who is just a puppetmaster for massive corporations, complaing that too many games are made by massive corporations so he is going to start a studio is just......*chef's kiss*

Even the geniuses eventually become a parody of themselves it seems.

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
Nobody denies "merit" isn't a thing, it's just not one thing and often impossible to measure during those first impressions you get in job interviews. Is that a strong nutshell?

I think that is a fair summation of it.

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
I think we maybe talk over eachother too, because what we haven't been debating is what DEI should never be about is selecting people for a job based on something that says absolutely nothing about them, like the color of their skin. And I think this is what it all comes down to. When two people somehow show the exact same skills and impressions during an interview, but one is white and the other is black, the color of their skin should never be the deciding factor, because exactly that is racism or discrimination. The same goes for gender, if gender should mean nothing for that specific job. In this situation, you either continue to interview them until someone comes out stronger, and in an almost fictional scenario where it remains 50/50... the final selection should be picked randomly.

Except in the real world, this almost never happens. One, because humans are not robots stamped out of a mould. I have never in my life, in decades of employment, met two candidates that were identical in every way with the only difference being their phenotype. There is always one candidate, for a variety of reasons, that stands out and edges the rest of the candidates out. Always. Two, no org that purely hires based on a checklist stays in business for very long. Ideology doesn't build teams or departments that can significantly execute reliably or pivot on a dime if necessary. It doesn't provide the leadership necessary to promote growth either as an organization or encourage growth in individuals.

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
Having observed the whole DEI public opinion for a few years, I believe this is the issue, and while debating what is and isn't "merit" or how useful it is while gauging the most competent applicant is interesting, I doubt it addresses the elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room is low skill individuals, usually white and male, being butthurt because they weren't automatically granted a job based on the color of their skin or gender. You'll never hear high skill individuals screeching about DEI because they've made a career for themselves and have climbed the corporate ladder.

Though it is not always white men whining. I'll give you a real world example. About six years ago I was asked to sit in on a hiring committee due to my interviewing techniques. It is important to note that on this hiring committee I was the only person who was white and the only person who was male.

We interviewed a bunch of people that day. I gave my recommendation on a candidate and thought nothing more of it. Two weeks later, my org's lawyers contacted me and asked me about a particular candidate we elected not to hire. This individual had filed a DEI complaint with the state and was moving forward with a lawsuit. The grounds, such as they were, for their complaint was that we discriminated against her because she was black and a woman.

When she interviewed to a panel that overwhelmingly consisted of women of color. Let that sink in for a moment.

Were DEI such the rampaging force that some people whine so loudly about, she should have been an automatic shoo-in for the job, right? The reality is that she bombed that interview so hard that, after she left, one of the other panel members joked we should rename the conference room to "Hiroshima". It was epic levels of bombing an interview. Truly breathtaking to behold in hindsight.

That's why I have no time for whining about DEI from low skill people and reject the notion that "merit based hiring" is anything but a smokescreen for "I should automatically get the job because reasons". You want the job? Interview better. Demonstrate a better grasp of the array of skills necessary to do the job, not just the function of one aspect of the job itself. Learn how to write a resume that sparks interest. Learn to network so that people know your face, your name, and something about you so that you are recognized as a known quality should your name come up for an interview.

In short, grow as a human being and don't come home from your McJob (and I am not throwing shade on any level of employment here) and whine on the internet that you didn't get the CEO job for which you applied.

Wow, there's a nice conversation going here! And I see everyone's point quite clearly now, I think.

Nobody denies "merit" isn't a thing, it's just not one thing and often impossible to measure during those first impressions you get in job interviews. Is that a strong nutshell?

I think we maybe talk over eachother too, because what we haven't been debating is what DEI should never be about is selecting people for a job based on something that says absolutely nothing about them, like the color of their skin. And I think this is what it all comes down to. When two people somehow show the exact same skills and impressions during an interview, but one is white and the other is black, the color of their skin should never be the deciding factor, because exactly that is racism or discrimination. The same goes for gender, if gender should mean nothing for that specific job. In this situation, you either continue to interview them until someone comes out stronger, and in an almost fictional scenario where it remains 50/50... the final selection should be picked randomly.

Having observed the whole DEI public opinion for a few years, I believe this is the issue, and while debating what is and isn't "merit" or how useful it is while gauging the most competent applicant is interesting, I doubt it addresses the elephant in the room.

Sepharo wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 15:52:

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 14:48:
Everything in sports is merit based, in fact core competencies is what drives the net worth of these athletes up.

That's not true.
A lot more goes into fitting on a team, performing on the field, and what the team, the agent, and the player agree on for compensation than just merit.

For example, why was Daniel Jones making more money than Sam Darnold or Baker Mayfield this season? DEI?

Why did Josh Rosen get drafted before Jaire Alexander, Lamar Jackson, and numerous other AllPros? DEI?

Why was Antonio Brown not signed by any teams needing WR when he was better than most out there? DEI?


Why is this guy not answering any of our questions and just simplifying things? DEI?

Your foot race analogies aren't accurate. Some people have a head start and some of them have a delayed start in the foot race analogy. Where they start in the foot race is a matter of luck caused by accidents of birth like being born in the right time and right place and to the right family.
A more in depth explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcnBM7rlZsI.

This comment was edited on Nov 29, 2024, 20:01.

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 14:48:
Everything in sports is merit based, in fact core competencies is what drives the net worth of these athletes up.

That's not true.
A lot more goes into fitting on a team, performing on the field, and what the team, the agent, and the player agree on for compensation than just merit.

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 13:19:
Beamer, Burrito - you're being trolled.

I honestly don't think so. I think it is a belief that is held by people whom have never had to hire, manage, or do anything beyond a first or second tier position in a business. It seems to make sense to them because they've never had to make the decision on whom to hire over and over again in changing business climates, with fluctuating circumstances, and with an understanding of what it is to have a whole group of direct reports that they have to make sure work cohesively together and with as little friction as possible.

In essence, it's like a chicken spouting off about how the farm is run.

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 14:48:
The 100m runner wins a gold metal because of the athlete's objectively measured competencies. The runner was faster, and therefore is a merit based win.
The coach who is looking to pick the best player for his basketball team, will go through the player's few last season performance statistics and decide based on those competencies. A merit base hire.
Everything in sports is merit based, in fact core competencies is what drives the net worth of these athletes up.
Claiming that merit doesn't exist or is a nebulous term, is just a fallacy .

Except no one was talking about sports until you brought it in to the conversation.

Now apply that same mentality to the questions that have been asked of you, directly, about real employment scenarios. "Prove" which person is "objectively" better based on merit.

The 100m runner wins a gold metal because of the athlete's objectively measured competencies. The runner was faster, and therefore is a merit based win.
The coach who is looking to pick the best player for his basketball team, will go through the player's few last season performance statistics and decide based on those competencies. A merit base hire.
Everything in sports is merit based, in fact core competencies is what drives the net worth of these athletes up.
Claiming that merit doesn't exist or is a nebulous term, is just a fallacy .

Let's say I have one person:

They cherry pick the most wildly unrepresentative act they could possibly think of.
It's still not a very convincing example.

Who is incompetent at debating?

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 13:08:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 12:59:

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 12:01:
Competence can be objectively measured.

Horseshit.

Let's say I have two people:

One person is exceptional at the technical aspects of a job. But on the human interaction side of the job they're lacking.

Another person is exceptonal at the human side of the job. They're lacking on the technical side of the job.

Which of the two is "objectively competent" at the job, which one isn't, and why.

Let's say I have two people:

One person is running the 100 m at 15 sec
The other one at 45 sec

Who is more competent at running the 100m race?

Can you tell me which job is simply running from point A to point B?

Or, perhaps more accurately, you have a 100m race coming up. One guy is the fastest, but is also running in the 150m race and the 50m race the morning before the 100m race, so he's likely to be gassed and you can't count on him being in top performance.
One guy is the second fastest, but when it rains, he's the slowest, and the forecast calls for a 50% chance of rain.
Another guy is third fastest, and the fastest in the rain, but the rest of the team absolutely hates him, no one is willing to share a room with him, and your shotput champion has said he won't travel with the team if this guy does.

Which do you pick?

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 12:59:

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 12:01:
Competence can be objectively measured.

Horseshit.

Let's say I have two people:

One person is exceptional at the technical aspects of a job. But on the human interaction side of the job they're lacking.

Another person is exceptonal at the human side of the job. They're lacking on the technical side of the job.

Which of the two is "objectively competent" at the job, which one isn't, and why.

Or, me right now. I joined a new company and need to build an entirely new team. I interviewed about a dozen SVP of Commerce candidates:

1) One woman seems to have a lot of strategic capability. I say "seems," because it's easier to sound like you have this in interviews than to have it, partially because you can take credit for other people's work. She seems to have good tactical skills, but isn't really a process focused person. The largest team she's led is 7 people.

2) Another woman is very, very strong tactically, and is really in the weeds. She loves building and fixing processes. She loves finding what is wrong and making it better. She is currently leading a team of 35 people. She doesn't have much to demonstrate strategically. She may have the capability, but it hasn't been proven. She's also the most junior, so the least experience.

3) A guy that has a really interesting background. Very heavily focused on media, and really knows how to make ads work. He has built teams, built processes, built long term strategy. But he has little experience in what is happening on retailers, absolutely zero shopper marketing experience, and doesn't really understand the work that's happening outside of planning, buying, optimizing, and measuring ads, which is probably 50% of the role, but he's flawless at that 50%.

This would be running a team of 80 people, responsible for an entire brand's entire commerce offering, from forecasting to shopper marketing to media spend to content to measurement to partnerships to, well, just running the team. The team is about 10 months old, and in a bad place. We desperately need processes for things that are duct taped together and barely functional. We need someone to set strategic vision. We need someone to keep team members from quitting from being overworked while we staff up and fix things. We need to find ways to help people be more efficient, because we're probably always going to be understaffed, because that's corporate America today - why hire 10 people to do the work of 10 people when you can hire 7 and push them to give up work life balance and sanity? Speaking of, this person has to help me build the case that this particular team is understaffed to an extreme, and more like 7 people doing the work of 14, and we need finance to open more roles as a relief valve for people giving way more than they should to their employer. We also need this person to have immediate credibility with other teams and start really being a leader in what a best in class Commerce team should look like and how we should be innovating. With a massive media budget, we can't screw that part up.

Who has the most merit? The woman that can set our long term vision, but has never led a team this large and may not be set up to succeed to fix all the current issues? The woman that has the experience with a team this large and can fix our multitude of immediate issues, but may not be set up to succeed for what the job looks like after that? The guy that can best handle the most visible part of the role in the CEO's mind (money going out), and can both fix issues and set vision, but is underqualified for the part of the job I care about most, which is money coming in?

I have 3 other SVP roles, but they're for different teams, and this team is the urgent one. There are people out there that can do all of this, but they're not looking for a role like this. It's VPs looking for their next step that make up our candidate pool, and all of them are missing something.

So who merits this position?

Beamer, Burrito - you're being trolled.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 12:59:

Argonius the 3rd wrote on Nov 29, 2024, 12:01:
Competence can be objectively measured.

Horseshit.

Let's say I have two people:

One person is exceptional at the technical aspects of a job. But on the human interaction side of the job they're lacking.

Another person is exceptonal at the human side of the job. They're lacking on the technical side of the job.

Which of the two is "objectively competent" at the job, which one isn't, and why.

Let's say I have two people:

One person is running the 100 m at 15 sec
The other one at 45 sec

Who is more competent at running the 100m race?