Of course we should hire and promote on merit. But unfortunately this isn’t what’s been happening, ever. Women in particular are accustomed to their merit being invisible to decision makers and organisations have been robbed of that merit through bias of decision makers.
It seems the only way to bypass this bias is to force DEI. People will get hurt, but nothing like the damage that’s been done via hiring and promotion practices in decades past.
I’m hopeful it will also force the development of far better KPIs so that merit can be more realistically assessed, and also hopeful for a utopia where DEI is no longer necessary, a relic of the past.
There is a way to adjust for the concern you have, Christine, in a way that is not punative to others. For, the scenario you suggest, would need to be multiplied by every slice of the rainbow, all competing for their inch up, wanting more budget to promote their DEI group, etc. It is a poison in the well. Sounds simple when you take one case, one wrong to right, but in reality is futile.
Here is how you change the inequities: Your scenario implies there are more qualified, higher merit women, that are not chosen for the jobs. Great. Start a competitive company, higher all those higher merit people who were discriminated against, win the market because you have better talent, and then speak on 100 stages of how and why you beat the old, outdated model. That works over and over, it just doesn't give the immediate emotional satisfaction some find in 'forcing' people to make way for them.
It’s already been demonstrated and widely publicised. Companies with women on boards perform better than male-only companies. That’s changed nothing and percentage of boards comprised by women has recently decreased. Women’s competence and leadership ability remain largely invisible.
Invisible? Look at every chart in this article, constant growth, in most cases 300% or more in 30 yrs. No dip, not wall, no flattening. It seems like you are only focused on "how is my favored group doing", which is the divisive and war-like culture created by DEI and intersectionality. It even uses terms like "ally" and "social warrior" as it pits all of society, every person, every segment, at war to "get their share!" It's unhealthy.
Yes, there are biases, yes we need to keep improving, but it is happening, directionally, and fairly profoundly, over the past 50 years.
"It seems the only way to bypass this bias is to force DEI."
This implies that the "bias" you're referring to can only be addressed through bypassing. Can you provide any example of genuine social/political progression that was achieved through "bypassing" the problem?
Because I fail to understand why you would make the assumption that such a method would be the only plausible solution. I also don't understand how bypassing anything is ever a way of addressing anything, let alone solving this grossly condensed and ill-defined concept of "bias" which you're referring to.
Of course we should hire and promote on merit. But unfortunately this isn’t what’s been happening, ever. Women in particular are accustomed to their merit being invisible to decision makers and organisations have been robbed of that merit through bias of decision makers.
It seems the only way to bypass this bias is to force DEI. People will get hurt, but nothing like the damage that’s been done via hiring and promotion practices in decades past.
I’m hopeful it will also force the development of far better KPIs so that merit can be more realistically assessed, and also hopeful for a utopia where DEI is no longer necessary, a relic of the past.
There is a way to adjust for the concern you have, Christine, in a way that is not punative to others. For, the scenario you suggest, would need to be multiplied by every slice of the rainbow, all competing for their inch up, wanting more budget to promote their DEI group, etc. It is a poison in the well. Sounds simple when you take one case, one wrong to right, but in reality is futile.
Here is how you change the inequities: Your scenario implies there are more qualified, higher merit women, that are not chosen for the jobs. Great. Start a competitive company, higher all those higher merit people who were discriminated against, win the market because you have better talent, and then speak on 100 stages of how and why you beat the old, outdated model. That works over and over, it just doesn't give the immediate emotional satisfaction some find in 'forcing' people to make way for them.
It’s already been demonstrated and widely publicised. Companies with women on boards perform better than male-only companies. That’s changed nothing and percentage of boards comprised by women has recently decreased. Women’s competence and leadership ability remain largely invisible.
Invisible? Look at every chart in this article, constant growth, in most cases 300% or more in 30 yrs. No dip, not wall, no flattening. It seems like you are only focused on "how is my favored group doing", which is the divisive and war-like culture created by DEI and intersectionality. It even uses terms like "ally" and "social warrior" as it pits all of society, every person, every segment, at war to "get their share!" It's unhealthy.
Yes, there are biases, yes we need to keep improving, but it is happening, directionally, and fairly profoundly, over the past 50 years.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/fact-sheet/the-data-on-women-leaders/
This is not the case in Australia. And being female, of course that’s my focus.
"It seems the only way to bypass this bias is to force DEI."
This implies that the "bias" you're referring to can only be addressed through bypassing. Can you provide any example of genuine social/political progression that was achieved through "bypassing" the problem?
Because I fail to understand why you would make the assumption that such a method would be the only plausible solution. I also don't understand how bypassing anything is ever a way of addressing anything, let alone solving this grossly condensed and ill-defined concept of "bias" which you're referring to.