We had a three-fer dEI hire once who was the most unproductive worker all three years she was here. same mistakes over and over despite training, managing, written instructions.
She got a free ride at a second tier bschool and left. Even the interns were showing her up.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP, I’d agree if we were talking entry level or first level manager. This is a Director-level position! C’mon!

This kind of thinking is particularly problematic, and perpetuates the severe underrepresentation of diverse individuals at director/executive levels.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bravo. Great answer. Practical, balanced and truthful.

Yet ignores the illegal conduct by HR. If he's fully qualified for the job and interviewed well, and the only reason he's not being considered further is his race, this is 100% illegal.

Tell them he is gay.

Jk

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.

Bravo. Great answer. Practical, balanced and truthful.

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.

PP, I’d agree if we were talking entry level or first level manager. This is a Director-level position! C’mon!

Any chance your bias is seeing the white male as better than he is and the diversity applicants as worse than they are because you resent them being forced on you?

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.

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.

It's not just racist. It's illegal. Discriminating against an applicant on the basis of his race is a clear Title VII violation.

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.

+1 this isn't HR's call in a functional company

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is a private company I’d start looking for a new job. The long term prospects for a company can’t be good if you’re being forced to hire a certain candidate because of their skin color. It would maybe be one thing if all candidates were equal. I assume you’re not working for a charity.

This is a large publicly traded company.

That sucks. This country is screwed.

Anonymous wrote:If this is a private company I’d start looking for a new job. The long term prospects for a company can’t be good if you’re being forced to hire a certain candidate because of their skin color. It would maybe be one thing if all candidates were equal. I assume you’re not working for a charity.

This is a large publicly traded company.

If this is a private company I’d start looking for a new job. The long term prospects for a company can’t be good if you’re being forced to hire a certain candidate because of their skin color. It would maybe be one thing if all candidates were equal. I assume you’re not working for a charity.

I am looking for a mid level employee to join my team. HR couldn’t find anyone internally so we have been looking externally but it has been a big challenge. They found 3 candidates but none have relevant experience and will require significant training to get up to speed, but they each check a DEI box. An internal employee referred a friend who is a white male who I pushed to interview and is extremely qualified for the job. He is my top choice for the job because he is the only candidate with any experience related to this job, and I need someone who can hit the ground running. HR is now telling me I can’t hire this person because they are trying to make the company more inclusive and pretty much that we don’t need more white men.

I am incredibly frustrated because I just want someone who has experience and can do the job well. It’s rare to hire someone at a director level with zero experience just because they check a box. I would happily interview other candidates who are both diverse and have more relevant experience, but they claim they can’t find anyone so I have to pick one of the three.

Are others experiencing this as other companies focus more on DE&I?