The Rooney Rule

[fiestavike]

Every day I'm on this board, I find myself more in agreement with the things you say.

It is incredibly unfortunate that we have marginalized people of color, women, etc. for so long. It's a crime, really. My wife is one of the smartest, most capable leaders I've ever known, yet she's faced misogyny from the beginning of her career right up until now, when she's close to retirement. She has seen the good-old-boy system in action for four decades, and even though she's accomplished amazing things, it's nothing compared to what she's capable of accomplishing. What she could have accomplished if not for the belief that she's inferior to men simply because she's not a man.

But here's the thing. These things have been going on for centuries. Slavery has been part of human existence since the fall of Adam and Eve. Women have been set behind men for thousands of years. So while that's all very, very wrong, it's also not something that can be changed overnight. Generations have to pass where these things are considered immoral. Even though racism and misogyny are not as prevalent as they were, say, 50 years ago, there are still parents who teach their kids that people of color are inferior, and that women belong in the kitchen and the bedroom. It's going to take time, probably another 2 or 3 generations, for real substantive progress to be made.

However, that doesn't mean meritocracy is a myth. Meritocracy is something we should strive for. It's something that decision-makers can control. If we simply bury our heads in the sand and say, "Society doesn't abide by meritocracy, therefore I won't," then we're doomed to continue giving important roles to people who haven't earned them. To call meritocracy a myth perpetuates the problem.

As my wife always tells me, if you want to see change, you have to be the change.

Agree with this 1000% Kapp!

Would you both say that you accept as a given that meritocracy will include diversity? Do you recognize a value to diversity apart from meritocracy or recognize that they might even be distinct values which can exist in conflict?

What if meritocracy were to produce notable non diverse outcomes? This brings it back toward the original context. What if due to cultural, social, or genetic reasons, one particular group did in fact merit all/most of the high status positions? For instance, in a pure meritocracy virtually slots at prestigious colleges should be occupied by hard working asian students. Is merit or diversity more important? This is part of what makes the origianal topic interesting.

Are there other values you can think of which might be in conflict with meritocracy, and are all of them lower values than the principle of merit?

[vikeinmontana]

Agree with this 1000% Kapp!

Would you both say that you accept as a given that meritocracy will include diversity? Do you recognize a value to diversity apart from meritocracy or recognize that they might even be distinct values which can exist in conflict?

What if meritocracy were to produce notable non diverse outcomes? This brings it back toward the original context. What if due to cultural, social, or genetic reasons, one particular group did in fact merit all/most of the high status positions? For instance, in a pure meritocracy virtually slots at prestigious colleges should be occupied by hard working asian students. Is merit or diversity more important? This is part of what makes the origianal topic interesting.

Are there other values you can think of which might be in conflict with meritocracy, and are all of them lower values than the principle of merit?

In layman’s terms…….

[J. Kapp 11]

Agree with this 1000% Kapp!

Would you both say that you accept as a given that meritocracy will include diversity? Do you recognize a value to diversity apart from meritocracy or recognize that they might even be distinct values which can exist in conflict?

What if meritocracy were to produce notable non diverse outcomes? This brings it back toward the original context. What if due to cultural, social, or genetic reasons, one particular group did in fact merit all/most of the high status positions? For instance, in a pure meritocracy virtually slots at prestigious colleges should be occupied by hard working asian students. Is merit or diversity more important? This is part of what makes the origianal topic interesting.

Are there other values you can think of which might be in conflict with meritocracy, and are all of them lower values than the principle of merit?

You ask hard questions here. I can only go by what I would do if I were running an organization.

I would hire qualified people, period. The best I could get at the price I could afford. However, insofar as the law allows, those qualifications would be set by me and my organization.

What you’re describing regarding cultural or social reasons is a separate issue. I do realize that some of those things affect who would be in my hiring pool, but as an organizational leader, my focus would be on the well-being of the organization — not trying to fix a worldwide problem. That being said, if a qualified candidate would show up on my doorstep, I wouldn’t care what color or gender they were. In my view, that’s how I could do my part in fair hiring.

However, I also would add that competence would not be not the only factor for me. If the position were public facing, with that person representing the organization in the community, I wouldn’t hire a qualified person covered in face tattoos and body piercings, or who consistently used vulgar language. I wouldn’t hire someone with an extensive criminal record. As the organization leader, I would reserve the right to disqualify candidates based on their behavior. There are things people can’t control, such as their skin color or gender. I would never hold those things against a candidate. But things a candidate CAN control — fair game.

I would also add this. I’ve seen things like misogyny used in reverse. I once interviewed for a managerial position in marketing that I was extremely qualified for. I had experience in everything from journalism to public relations to advertising to direct marketing. I had been at the company for a year and had earned the respect of everyone on the marketing team. I had managed 6-figure projects on both the sales and marketing side. But 5 minutes into my interview, it was clear I wasn’t being taken seriously. Three women interviewed me, and I knew quickly that their intention was to hire a woman. They hadn’t even read my resume. Sure enough, they hired a woman who had no experience in marketing, but who had managed a customer service call center. Completely unqualified. Within 2 years, every member of the marketing team had left, including me, and her incompetence eventually got her fired a year or so after that.

Even now, my own wife is the victim of anti-meritocracy. She’s CFO at her company, and she’s been asked to apply to be an EVP, with that position to be groomed for 2 years as the replacement for the current CEO. You might wonder why that would piss me off. Well, that’s because the current CEO has no intention of recommending her to the board. He has his hand-picked favorite, and he’s only asked my wife to apply because he wants the board to see that there are multiple internal candidates, and one of them is a woman. She’s 10 times more qualified, but he’s already chosen his pal, and the board is very likely to select the one he recommends. In other words, she’s being put through a sham interview — and he freely admits it!

So you’ll forgive me for my sensitivity on the subject of meritocracy.

[fiestavike]

Would you both say that you accept as a given that meritocracy will include diversity? Do you recognize a value to diversity apart from meritocracy or recognize that they might even be distinct values which can exist in conflict?

What if meritocracy were to produce notable non diverse outcomes? This brings it back toward the original context. What if due to cultural, social, or genetic reasons, one particular group did in fact merit all/most of the high status positions? For instance, in a pure meritocracy virtually slots at prestigious colleges should be occupied by hard working asian students. Is merit or diversity more important? This is part of what makes the origianal topic interesting.

Are there other values you can think of which might be in conflict with meritocracy, and are all of them lower values than the principle of merit?

You ask hard questions here. I can only go by what I would do if I were running an organization.

I would hire qualified people, period. The best I could get at the price I could afford. However, insofar as the law allows, those qualifications would be set by me and my organization.

What you’re describing regarding cultural or social reasons is a separate issue. I do realize that some of those things affect who would be in my hiring pool, but as an organizational leader, my focus would be on the well-being of the organization — not trying to fix a worldwide problem. That being said, if a qualified candidate would show up on my doorstep, I wouldn’t care what color or gender they were. In my view, that’s how I could do my part in fair hiring.

However, I also would add that competence would not be not the only factor for me. If the position were public facing, with that person representing the organization in the community, I wouldn’t hire a qualified person covered in face tattoos and body piercings, or who consistently used vulgar language. I wouldn’t hire someone with an extensive criminal record. As the organization leader, I would reserve the right to disqualify candidates based on their behavior. There are things people can’t control, such as their skin color or gender. I would never hold those things against a candidate. But things a candidate CAN control — fair game.

I would also add this. I’ve seen things like misogyny used in reverse. I once interviewed for a managerial position in marketing that I was extremely qualified for. I had experience in everything from journalism to public relations to advertising to direct marketing. I had been at the company for a year and had earned the respect of everyone on the marketing team. I had managed 6-figure projects on both the sales and marketing side. But 5 minutes into my interview, it was clear I wasn’t being taken seriously. Three women interviewed me, and I knew quickly that their intention was to hire a woman. They hadn’t even read my resume. Sure enough, they hired a woman who had no experience in marketing, but who had managed a customer service call center. Completely unqualified. Within 2 years, every member of the marketing team had left, including me, and her incompetence eventually got her fired a year or so after that.

Even now, my own wife is the victim of anti-meritocracy. She’s CFO at her company, and she’s been asked to apply to be an EVP, with that position to be groomed for 2 years as the replacement for the current CEO. You might wonder why that would piss me off. Well, that’s because the current CEO has no intention of recommending her to the board. He has his hand-picked favorite, and he’s only asked my wife to apply because he wants the board to see that there are multiple internal candidates, and one of them is a woman. She’s 10 times more qualified, but he’s already chosen his pal, and the board is very likely to select the one he recommends. In other words, she’s being put through a sham interview — and he freely admits it!

So you’ll forgive me for my sensitivity on the subject of meritocracy.

I can appreciate that, and my critique is not primarily against meritocracy, though what I call the myth of meritocracy is one expression of the broader myth that defines Modernity, which is chiefly the myth of progress. I don't believe in progress. I think everything comes with trade offs, but our whole way of viewing the world for the last couple centuries is shaped by the myth that we can, and have, made the world better. I don't agree. Obviously, I'm holding a minority opinion given that we have all been shaped by and steeped in a culture and view of history which holds this myth of progress at its very core.

[J. Kapp 11]

You ask hard questions here. I can only go by what I would do if I were running an organization.

I would hire qualified people, period. The best I could get at the price I could afford. However, insofar as the law allows, those qualifications would be set by me and my organization.

What you’re describing regarding cultural or social reasons is a separate issue. I do realize that some of those things affect who would be in my hiring pool, but as an organizational leader, my focus would be on the well-being of the organization — not trying to fix a worldwide problem. That being said, if a qualified candidate would show up on my doorstep, I wouldn’t care what color or gender they were. In my view, that’s how I could do my part in fair hiring.

However, I also would add that competence would not be not the only factor for me. If the position were public facing, with that person representing the organization in the community, I wouldn’t hire a qualified person covered in face tattoos and body piercings, or who consistently used vulgar language. I wouldn’t hire someone with an extensive criminal record. As the organization leader, I would reserve the right to disqualify candidates based on their behavior. There are things people can’t control, such as their skin color or gender. I would never hold those things against a candidate. But things a candidate CAN control — fair game.

I would also add this. I’ve seen things like misogyny used in reverse. I once interviewed for a managerial position in marketing that I was extremely qualified for. I had experience in everything from journalism to public relations to advertising to direct marketing. I had been at the company for a year and had earned the respect of everyone on the marketing team. I had managed 6-figure projects on both the sales and marketing side. But 5 minutes into my interview, it was clear I wasn’t being taken seriously. Three women interviewed me, and I knew quickly that their intention was to hire a woman. They hadn’t even read my resume. Sure enough, they hired a woman who had no experience in marketing, but who had managed a customer service call center. Completely unqualified. Within 2 years, every member of the marketing team had left, including me, and her incompetence eventually got her fired a year or so after that.

Even now, my own wife is the victim of anti-meritocracy. She’s CFO at her company, and she’s been asked to apply to be an EVP, with that position to be groomed for 2 years as the replacement for the current CEO. You might wonder why that would piss me off. Well, that’s because the current CEO has no intention of recommending her to the board. He has his hand-picked favorite, and he’s only asked my wife to apply because he wants the board to see that there are multiple internal candidates, and one of them is a woman. She’s 10 times more qualified, but he’s already chosen his pal, and the board is very likely to select the one he recommends. In other words, she’s being put through a sham interview — and he freely admits it!

So you’ll forgive me for my sensitivity on the subject of meritocracy.

I can appreciate that, and my critique is not primarily against meritocracy, though what I call the myth of meritocracy is one expression of the broader myth that defines Modernity, which is chiefly the myth of progress. I don't believe in progress. I think everything comes with trade offs, but our whole way of viewing the world for the last couple centuries is shaped by the myth that we can, and have, made the world better. I don't agree. Obviously, I'm holding a minority opinion given that we have all been shaped by and steeped in a culture and view of history which holds this myth of progress at its very core.

I don’t know … maybe there is progress, but it’s just slower than we’d like. Pretty hard to erase centuries of racism overnight.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation.

And for the record, as her personal resume and cover letter writer, my goal is to get the board to ask, “Why the heck are you recommending this chump? SHE’S your best candidate.”

[Foreman44]

What is unfortunate that racism exists. But Racism is a two way street,. Until the racists black white or other stop. It will never change..

To me BLM is just as racist as the KKK. I remember a guy in mobile Ala. telling me all the good the KKK did and I should join. A minute later he screamed the N word towards a black man,I left. I should have when he mentioned KKK..

I told a couple BLM people all lives matter. They said that’s is not the same.


It’s wrong to ban anyone to participate in beauty pageants. But ok to have a Miss Black America, BLM is cool, but if you did WLM all hell would break out...

I am not condoning what I said. Until racism stops both sides, all sides. It will always be there,

Everyone should look WHAT the great MLK SAID.


O
K
In



I agree the Rooney Rule is not good. It’s set up to DO good, but currently it’s not.

I compare it to the NCAA forcing high school hoopers to go to college. In theory I see the point, but it’s ruining the college game. Kids good enough to go to the NBA are a fraction of a percent. But force them to a school, make them play college hoops for one year, they’ll pretend to go to class, and then leave for the league.

In a perfect world the Rooney Rule wouldn’t be a thing. It wouldn’t need to be. People would just hire the best candidate. But either black people don’t want to coach, black people aren’t qualified to coach, or we have a problem. My guess is we have a problem. The numbers just don’t stack up. So they put a rule in place to alleviate the problem; but now we have a different set of problems.

I think it’ll work out at some point. I’m an optimist. But something needs to be done to ensure everyone regardless of race or sex is getting a shot.

I agree VIM. In a perfect world. Unfortunately it’s not. It’s wrong for anyone to be discriminated against for any reason, race, sex, gender etc, any reason. It shouldn’t be. It’s just as wrong mandating any group or gender for any position as well. I suspect that privilege isabused as much as the other is... it’s sad that it’s this way.