Seattle emphasizing diversity in hires

[SuperScript29]

I don't disagree with you, but it stands that someone from your own cultural background and gender is more likely to have similar interests to you (I have no data to back that up, just going off of anecdotal experience so feel free to disagree), so when one race/gender (the white man in our society) dominates the plurality of people in power, it leaks down into other positions as well, even if unintentionally. I'm not even sure it makes someone racist/sexist, it is a part of human nature to want to spend more time with someone you think you'd get along with rather than someone you wouldn't.

I feel like a lot of this racial/gender thing is probably personality and cultural bias. I guess cultural bias can be somewhat on that level, though it's more about ethnicity rather than race, and it tends to be more prevalent among immigrant minorities from my experience. I come from an ethnic minority myself, and I can tell you that within my own ethnic group that this bias thing exists, even more so than your typical white populations of North America, Europe, Australia, etc.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It's in the OP. They will set targets of having so many women/minorities.

If this means they will try to ensure that those groups are represented or invited to be in a group of applicants but not necessarily will not hire them if they aren't the best candidate, that's fine.

If it means they will only interview certain genders or races for a job to maintain certain % goals, then they would be shutting out genders and races.

You are making a lot of assumptions as to how they get to that figure.

 

[Major4Boarding]

Good luck being at the bottom of the league then. They can use Boeing as a reference - once they went full on ****** with the diversity hires, well, we end up with the 747 Max.

First of all, it's the 737-Max 8. Big difference, literally and figuratively . Secondly, what happened with that debacle had zero, absolutely nothing, to do with "diversity hires". That will go down as yet another case study of not paying attention to your competition, getting caught cutting corners, and thinking of nothing but the lower-cost bottom line.

Because that's what happened

 

[qqaz]

If your team's group of defencemen is entirely right handed, then maybe you need some diversity and should bring in a left handed defenceman. It doesn't mean that D candidates will be completely ignored if they are right handed. It just means that handedness equality will factor into who is the best candidate.

Keeping lefties and righties exactly equal is an understandable goal.

If your management is is entirely white men, then maybe you need some diversity and should bring in someone different. It doesn't mean that candidates will be completely ignored if they are white men. It just means that gender and background equality will factor into who is the best candidate.

Keeping a management group diverse is an understandable goal.

 

[daver]

You are making a lot of assumptions as to how they get to that figure.

Here is what is in the OP:

"The Seattle region has grown in diversity, and NHL Seattle wants the same. 49 hires in organization, on way to estimated 200, and nearly half of employees are women, ~25% non-white. Internal guidelines as to %s wanted."

What is one to make of this?

 

[Jacob]

If your team's group of defencemen is entirely right handed, then maybe you need some diversity and should bring in a left handed defenceman. It doesn't mean that D candidates will be completely ignored if they are right handed. It just means that handedness equality will factor into who is the best candidate.

Keeping lefties and righties exactly equal is an understandable goal.

If your management is is entirely white men, then maybe you need some diversity and should bring in someone different. It doesn't mean that candidates will be completely ignored if they are white men. It just means that gender and background equality will factor into who is the best candidate.

Keeping a management group diverse is an understandable goal.

That doesn’t make as much sense as you think it does. Handedness has practical applications in sport. It’s part of a skillset. Skin tone doesn’t have any practical application in an office setting, as far as I can tell.

 

[qqaz]

That doesn’t make as much sense as you think it does. Handedness has practical applications in sport. It’s part of a skillset. Skin tone doesn’t have any practical application in an office setting, as far as I can tell.

Diversity in background does have practical application. A more diverse group will give you fresher ideas and more unique viewpoints. Different people will approach a task or a problem differently, and by doing that you get an advantage.

This is how you destroy "the old boys club" that plagues teams. It's a real solution for a widely acknowledged hockey problem.

 

[Major4Boarding]

I just want to interject and applaud the mods for letting this thread stay open for 10 pages. Many threads like this would have been culled after the first 10 posts, especially on the mainboard.

I don't think anyone has changed their opinions based on the debate/discussion but discord is still important and its great that everyone here has been able to post their viewpoints in accordance with our free speech principles.

We thank you for the accolades and I'm not one to intentionally stifle discussions however they have to stay in the specific aspects of this forum. So with that said, I might just have to shut it down though.

 

[Jacob]

Diversity in background does have practical application.

But we’re talking about diversity in appearance, not background.

A more diverse group will give you fresher ideas and more unique viewpoints. Different people will approach a task or a problem differently, and by doing that you get an advantage.

Can you give an example in the context of this discussion? I’m not clear on how a brown person would approach a task differently or have a unique viewpoint compared to a white person.

 

[Rowlet]

Good to hear

 

[qqaz]

That doesn’t make as much sense as you think it does. Handedness has practical applications in sport. It’s part of a skillset. Skin tone doesn’t have any practical application in an office setting, as far as I can tell.

How about a different example. Let's say you are in charge of a new expansion team, and need to hire a full coaching staff.

The same offseason teamX fired their entire coaching staff. HC, assistants, trainers, the whole lot.

You find the best head coach candidate who was the former teamX HC, and hire him.

Now you need assistant coaches. Would you go and hire the same assistants formerly from teamX? How about their former trainers? Would you hire them all if they each individually were the leading candidate for each position? Or at some point is there value in a new voice?

I agree that a hire should be the best candidate available. But diversity should be a factor when deciding who is the "best" person for the job.

 

[daver]

Diversity in background does have practical application. A more diverse group will give you fresher ideas and more unique viewpoints. Different people will approach a task or a problem differently, and by doing that you get an advantage.

This presumes that a woman or a non-white automatically has these attributes.

 

[qqaz]

But we’re talking about diversity in appearance, not background.

Trust me, there's more going on than appearance when deciding between hiring a man or a woman. Life experiences, even of 2 people who grew up in the same area or even same family, will be wildly different between the two.

Can you give an example in the context of this discussion? I’m not clear on how a brown person would approach a task differently or have a unique viewpoint compared to a white person.

How about the male department head that fired a woman for menstruating in 2015. Would a range of voices have fixed this problem?

 

[daver]

How about a different example. Let's say you are in charge of a new expansion team, and need to hire a full coaching staff.

The same offseason teamX fired their entire coaching staff. HC, assistants, trainers, the whole lot.

You find the best head coach candidate who was the former teamX HC, and hire him.

Now you need assistant coaches. Would you go and hire the same assistants formerly from teamX? How about their former trainers? Would you hire them all if they each individually were the leading candidate for each position? Or at some point is there value in a new voice?

I agree that a hire should be the best candidate available. But diversity should be a factor when deciding who is the "best" person for the job.

This is making some very unusual assumptions that all white males think the same way. That being said, that the team felt the need to publicize their "diversity" clearly indicates an additional or different motivation than what you are talking about. I think it is just a PR move frankly. It looks good on paper, makes them look woke, and noone will go back in two years to see how diverse they actually are including any of the posters in this thread who are getting worked up about this.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I want a world where people get equal opportunity. This isn’t happening right now and if quotas is what it takes then so be it.

I think everyone in this thread wants equal opportunity, and diversity itself is very much an asset.

However, there is an unfortunate difference between equality of opportunity, and equality in results.


A quota like Seattle is using of a percentage of one category of people may not necessarily reflect the demographics of qualified personnel. In fact, a much higher percentage of the applicants may hypothetically be another category. This introduces an inequality in opportunity, despite mandating an equality of resulting hires.


Meanwhile, making your hire without considering a diversity quota would be a much more equal field in terms of opportunity....however, it is a much slower process into actually achieving results and it makes it easier to hide prejudice. It is also harder to change the perception that "X" field of work (or any type of interest for that matter) is only for "Y" type of person.

I honestly don't know if there is a perfect solution, but I'm also not sure quotas are taking us where we want to go....in fact I sometimes worry those type of percentages without context may in fact create more of the very prejudice they are attempting to eliminate.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Who isn’t getting equal opportunity though?

Minorities and women.

 

[daver]

Minorities and women.

Why not? There are more women in universities these days then men and some minorities get special advantages through affirmative action.

What are some examples of them not getting opportunities?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Why not? There are more women in universities these days then men and some minorities get special advantages through affirmative action.

What are some examples of them not getting opportunities?

Easy. Head coaches in NFL and college football? Guess how many minority are in position of power?

Just because they can drink from the same fountains now doesn’t mean equality actually exist. Maybe you should escape the white suburban bubble and actually take time and talk to people of color.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Here is what is in the OP:

"The Seattle region has grown in diversity, and NHL Seattle wants the same. 49 hires in organization, on way to estimated 200, and nearly half of employees are women, ~25% non-white. Internal guidelines as to %s wanted."

What is one to make of this?

That they are being more open to diverse candidates and are likely reaching out to the best possible employees of majority and minority applicants?

 

[Jacob]

Minorities and women.

Only some minority groups are disadvantaged. Are those the ones Seattle is targeting?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Only some minority groups are disadvantaged. Are those the ones Seattle is targeting?

Not some. Most.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Not some. Most.

Do you by any chance work in the grievance industry?

 

[Jacob]

Not some. Most.

My point is if they’re not targeting the specific disadvantaged groups and just considering all non-whites as a monolithic group they’re doing nothing but perpetuating inequality.

 

[daver]

Easy. Head coaches in NFL and college football? Guess how many minority are in position of power?

Just because they can drink from the same fountains now doesn’t mean equality actually exist. Maybe you should escape the white suburban bubble and actually take time and talk to people of color.

So the NFL should force the next NFL team with an opening for a head coach to hire only a black candidate to try to create more equal opportunity?

 

[daver]

That they are being more open to diverse candidates and are likely reaching out to the best possible employees of majority and minority applicants?

Then why mention meeting certain %s? Why not say just that?