. . . Hiring on merit will be a permanent policy at Scale.
It’s a big deal whenever we invite someone to join our mission, and those decisions have never been swayed by orthodoxy or virtue signaling or whatever the current thing is. I think of our guiding principle as MEI: merit, excellence, and intelligence.
That means we hire only the best person for the job, we seek out and demand excellence, and we unapologetically prefer people who are very smart.
Not every position in every enterprise requires people who are very smart, but all enterprises need people who are best for the job.
We treat everyone as an individual. We do not unfairly stereotype, tokenize, or otherwise treat anyone as a member of a demographic group rather than as an individual.
This is judging based not on membership of a group, but on characteristics over which people have control and can change.
We believe that people should be judged by the content of their character — and, as colleagues, be additionally judged by their talent, skills, and work ethic.
There is a mistaken belief that meritocracy somehow conflicts with diversity. I strongly disagree. No group has a monopoly on excellence. A hiring process based on merit will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. Achieving this requires casting a wide net for talent and then objectively selecting the best, without bias in any direction. We will not pick winners and losers based on someone being the “right” or “wrong” race, gender, and so on. It should be needless to say, and yet it needs saying: doing so would be racist and sexist, not to mention illegal.
That is the irony of DEI – it purports to be against discrimination but everything it stands for – putting people into groups because of immutable characteristics such as race or sex, is discrimination in action.
Upholding meritocracy is good for business and is the right thing to do. This approach not only results in the strongest possible team, but also ensures we’re treating our colleagues with fairness and respect. . .
Businesses aren’t the only organisations that would benefit from upholding meritocracy – politics local and central would be much better for more of it too.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
1 comment:
DEI creates a sense of entitlement in members of target groups such as people who belong (usually only partially) to favoured racial groups. They regard it as their right to be appointed or promoted and squeal 'discrimination' when they don't get their way.
It also creates an environment where competent colleagues dare not criticise DEI political appointees for fear of being accused of harassment or discrimination. This creates very dangerous situations where incompetent DEI political appointees are guiding aircraft in or wielding a surgical scalpel.
DEI creates a new underclass of people who may, indeed must, be discriminated against at every twist and turn - White sexually normal males. That's despite just about every advance in science and technology, and political philosophy including equality and universal human rights, being down to us.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.