sundin13 said:
While I agree with this, the means to go about this change is to change your hiring to look for people who exemplify attributes that are on demand, not by utilizing affirmative action to try to brute force your way through a problem. The goal should be to hire those who have a different way of thinking, not to assume that because they are a different gender, they have a different way of thinking. No attribute is race or sex specific, and few individuals embody all of the traits of the race or sex they belong to. Basically, diversity of sex or race is basically meaningless in a vacuum, while diversity of thought is important. While the two are correlated, you cannot hire assuming the two are one in the same. |
Not going to go into how one can find the best person, was just saying the best qualified may not be the best person. And also that I never buy it when a company comes out with some initiative to be more diverse as them being a good company. They are doing it for PR reasons or for monetary reason.
An interviewer can try whatever they can to find the best person. If you have been in any sort of hiring position you would know that some of the best interviewers can be the worst employees. They can seemingly fit every criteria, have amazign experience and accomplishments. Great resume, great references, ect. Then they start and you find out they are lazy, they don't mesh well with others and cause conflict reducing everyones productivity, ect. They end up being one of yoru worst employees. Think of it like Terrel Owens or something. Amazing athlete and pulls great stats, but a cancer to the team.