"Equal opportunity" led to quotas for minorities, i.e. less-qualified people. A better approach would have been special programs for minorities to raise them to the standards (e.g. test scores). But that raises other issues. Focusing too much on scoring leads to over -representation of, e.g., Asians and Jews in some fields. In the military it leads to more women than the perceived number of appropriate positions for them. Don't know if there is any clear answer - some subjectivity seems appropriate. Think there is a very strong argument to be made (you just made it) that a diversity of views and experiences intimately leads to a stronger and more resilient organization.
I believe that equal opportunity is consistent with hiring the best qualified person. Equity is a distortion that emphasizes equal results and thus encourages quotas. I think the good news is we are about to see a major shift back toward equal opportunity.
Agree that quotas run counter to competitive excellence and ultimately backfire. Increasingly, the best qualified person is not an American-born white male and that is a bother. Backlash! Also, something to be said for diversity. I once was in a 69-person department. We all took the Myers-Briggs test and 68 of them were solidly analytical. One (me) was surprisingly solidly intuitive. I watched them in perfect unity walk off a cliff that to me was clearly coming.
You can definitely find group-think with some teams. One of the early items to watch for is how decisions are really made as opposed to how they are thought to be made.
An old cartoon had an interviewer saying, "You're exactly what I've been looking for!" and the person on the other side of the table was a clone of the interviewer.
"Equal opportunity" led to quotas for minorities, i.e. less-qualified people. A better approach would have been special programs for minorities to raise them to the standards (e.g. test scores). But that raises other issues. Focusing too much on scoring leads to over -representation of, e.g., Asians and Jews in some fields. In the military it leads to more women than the perceived number of appropriate positions for them. Don't know if there is any clear answer - some subjectivity seems appropriate. Think there is a very strong argument to be made (you just made it) that a diversity of views and experiences intimately leads to a stronger and more resilient organization.
Jim,
I believe that equal opportunity is consistent with hiring the best qualified person. Equity is a distortion that emphasizes equal results and thus encourages quotas. I think the good news is we are about to see a major shift back toward equal opportunity.
Michael
Agree that quotas run counter to competitive excellence and ultimately backfire. Increasingly, the best qualified person is not an American-born white male and that is a bother. Backlash! Also, something to be said for diversity. I once was in a 69-person department. We all took the Myers-Briggs test and 68 of them were solidly analytical. One (me) was surprisingly solidly intuitive. I watched them in perfect unity walk off a cliff that to me was clearly coming.
You can definitely find group-think with some teams. One of the early items to watch for is how decisions are really made as opposed to how they are thought to be made.
An old cartoon had an interviewer saying, "You're exactly what I've been looking for!" and the person on the other side of the table was a clone of the interviewer.
Michael