Can’t hire the employee I want

[Anonymous]

If you look at the timeline, it seems that OP "found" this candidate after the process had winnowed the candidates down to three finalists.

I'd also really echo the person who is saying that it's not a coincidence that the white man also happens to be well-connected and a good interviewer. Unconscious bias often means that we look for candidates like ourselves, who "speak our language," and who we believe have the specific cultural attributes that will let them "hit the ground running."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would take this up to senior management. I would put in a complaint. It’s simply racist to not hire someone because of their skin color.

Then you can start counting your days w/ company

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call BS. No HR person in a company that size would EVER say what you claim, and they know darn well what an affirmative action plan is and isn't. I'm guessing there is more to the situation and the problem they are managing is likely you. You say the candidates who were DEI were not qualified -- obviously they disagree.

I’ve heard similar things being said during layoffs, so I don’t think it’s necessarily a troll to think it’s happening in hiring too.

You’ve heard of people being told they were laid off because they were white men, or what?

It was more like “we made a list of the lowest performers to cut and then realized that we’d have less diversity so we kept those people and fired some others instead”. I would not have believed it if I hadn’t heard it for myself.

HR told you this? That they cut you because you’re white? And this has happened more than once? Hmm.

wasn't there some news story about some school district doing this? They were going to layoff people and discovered that if they do it by tenure or seniority, then they would be left with mostly white teachers.

https://www.blackenterprise.com/minneapolis-school-district-will-lay-off-white-teachers-first-according-to-new-union-contract/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call BS. No HR person in a company that size would EVER say what you claim, and they know darn well what an affirmative action plan is and isn't. I'm guessing there is more to the situation and the problem they are managing is likely you. You say the candidates who were DEI were not qualified -- obviously they disagree.

I’ve heard similar things being said during layoffs, so I don’t think it’s necessarily a troll to think it’s happening in hiring too.

You’ve heard of people being told they were laid off because they were white men, or what?

It was more like “we made a list of the lowest performers to cut and then realized that we’d have less diversity so we kept those people and fired some others instead”. I would not have believed it if I hadn’t heard it for myself.

HR told you this? That they cut you because you’re white? And this has happened more than once? Hmm.

wasn't there some news story about some school district doing this? They were going to layoff people and discovered that if they do it by tenure or seniority, then they would be left with mostly white teachers.

https://www.blackenterprise.com/minneapolis-school-district-will-lay-off-white-teachers-first-according-to-new-union-contract/

I’m not asking about a union’s collective bargaining agreement. I’m interested in this person’s experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the timeline, it seems that OP "found" this candidate after the process had winnowed the candidates down to three finalists.

I'd also really echo the person who is saying that it's not a coincidence that the white man also happens to be well-connected and a good interviewer. Unconscious bias often means that we look for candidates like ourselves, who "speak our language," and who we believe have the specific cultural attributes that will let them "hit the ground running."

This is what happens in finance. People want someone who's "a good cultural fit" aka a carbon copy of themselves. There are some IB firms in Texas that only hire from a specific fraternity at UT or TAMU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call BS. No HR person in a company that size would EVER say what you claim, and they know darn well what an affirmative action plan is and isn't. I'm guessing there is more to the situation and the problem they are managing is likely you. You say the candidates who were DEI were not qualified -- obviously they disagree.

I’ve heard similar things being said during layoffs, so I don’t think it’s necessarily a troll to think it’s happening in hiring too.

This is definitely happening. A highly qualified colleague of mine was recently told he can’t be hired for another internal position because they already have too many white males.

I was just asked by a partner organization and co-presenters at a conference to ask my boss (who is Black) to present my project at the conference, instead of me. They said, "our panel is not representative of diverse experiences", meaning too white. So I asked my boss if she could present it. She laughed in my face, then got annoyed and said, why would I present your project for you, you know it, you built it, you measured it.

Good boss to give you credit for your own work. Good luck with the conference organizers. Sheesh!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need to realize that it isn't some coincidence that you want to hire the white guy with a friend at the company who interviews well and seems like he'll "hit the ground running." Recognize that he's likely had a variety of privileges in his life that have led to him having good connections and good interview skills. There is value in bringing someone on who might have a different perspective, even if they need a bit more training at the beginning.

On a practical level, they're telling you that the person you want isn't an option. So, you can either go out and find more options, which will take time, or you can pick your favorite of the three options you have and train them, which will also take time. Seems to me like the latter option is easier, and has a higher likelihood of success.

Or you can tell HR that you're the hiring manager, not them, and you make the decision on who to hire.

[Anonymous]

OP, I suspect you wrote the job description & requirements based on a preconceived notion of the "perfect candidate", not based on what the job actually requires. That's evidenced by the fact that there is only one single candidate in the entire world who meets those qualifications, and that candidate just happens to be a white male with connections.

I would challenge you to go back and really look hard at what you are using to measure the candidates. Are they real requirements for the job? Or are they unconsciously designed to weed out candidates who don't fit the mold? Maybe have a second independent/objective person read over the measurement criteria. Try to understand why it's so hard to find qualified candidates. Is the position scoped with unrealistic expectations?

Here's a hint, a director level position should not generally require lengthy technical experience in every aspect of their role - directors are usually too broad for that. They might have deep expertise in one area, or a bit of exposure across the board. If you're expecting deep expertise across the board, that's probably not a realistic expectation, that's weed-out criteria designed to narrow the field to people of your choosing. (I say probably because the definition of directors can vary across industries, I don't know yours ... But this is true in every case I've known).

[Anonymous]

Hire the URM and spend half your time training and managing them until the whole group suffers, then leave.

#SocialJustice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even during reagan/bush federal agencies would do this. There was one guy at the state department, hired as an attorney but he was licensed. They overlooked that, then he started taking the bar exam but would fail it. After his 7th time failing he stopped taking it , but continued working the job, everyone looked the other way despite UPL being a crime

How is this even possible if you can only take the exam 4x. You’re clearly a racist POS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even during reagan/bush federal agencies would do this. There was one guy at the state department, hired as an attorney but he was licensed. They overlooked that, then he started taking the bar exam but would fail it. After his 7th time failing he stopped taking it , but continued working the job, everyone looked the other way despite UPL being a crime

How is this even possible if you can only take the exam 4x. You’re clearly a racist POS.

What do you mean only take the exam 4x? Many states let you take the bar repeatedly.