For me, this is an interesting example of a policy of positive discrimination .
It was brought in to American Football to address the imbalance of the ratio of of the coaches in relation to the player pool, in terms of ethnicity.
There was an obvious bias, whether concious or not, in the recruitment of coaches. This meant ability was being overlooked, apart from the fairness aspect.
However, the key aspect of the solution was not to impose a quota (in terms of ethnicity)on the number of coaches hired, but to impose a quota on the number of candidates interviewed.
This means that the employer is free to hire the best candidate, but they are exposed to the possibility of the best candidate being of the under represented group.
The 'minority'person who gets the job is not tarnished with the ' they only got the job because they are a minority ' jibe.
The 'majority' person who gets the job is not tarnished with the ' they only got the job because nobody else gets a chance' jibe. If at the moment you get a job because your employer wil not interview/consider minority candidates, then your ability is in doubt.
What this system does , is open the door for those who are less likely to get a chance to put themselves in the shop window;then they can make their pitch.
If they get the job, it is not devalued in any way.
The employer can tap in to a hitherto under-utilised source of ability.
Minority groups can see more value in acquiring qualifications, skills etc and remove a sometimes self imposed (but often understandable) barrier to achievement
Underrepresented groups need the opportunity to succeed, and fail, if organisations want to get the best out of their recruitment.
So - is this a better way of addressing unfairness than a straight quota on hiring?
Of course if your mindset does not allow you to consider giving opportunities to the most able regardless of background, then this question is probably irrelevant.
It was brought in to American Football to address the imbalance of the ratio of of the coaches in relation to the player pool, in terms of ethnicity.
There was an obvious bias, whether concious or not, in the recruitment of coaches. This meant ability was being overlooked, apart from the fairness aspect.
However, the key aspect of the solution was not to impose a quota (in terms of ethnicity)on the number of coaches hired, but to impose a quota on the number of candidates interviewed.
This means that the employer is free to hire the best candidate, but they are exposed to the possibility of the best candidate being of the under represented group.
The 'minority'person who gets the job is not tarnished with the ' they only got the job because they are a minority ' jibe.
The 'majority' person who gets the job is not tarnished with the ' they only got the job because nobody else gets a chance' jibe. If at the moment you get a job because your employer wil not interview/consider minority candidates, then your ability is in doubt.
What this system does , is open the door for those who are less likely to get a chance to put themselves in the shop window;then they can make their pitch.
If they get the job, it is not devalued in any way.
The employer can tap in to a hitherto under-utilised source of ability.
Minority groups can see more value in acquiring qualifications, skills etc and remove a sometimes self imposed (but often understandable) barrier to achievement
Underrepresented groups need the opportunity to succeed, and fail, if organisations want to get the best out of their recruitment.
So - is this a better way of addressing unfairness than a straight quota on hiring?
Of course if your mindset does not allow you to consider giving opportunities to the most able regardless of background, then this question is probably irrelevant.
