Of course you are correct.
However, when it is abused, it leads to tokenism, which leads to resentment. I am all about equal opportunity, which means the best candidate for the job, regardless of race, age, sexuality, gender etc.
By abused, I mean when a quota system is put in place, where a certain percentage of a group must be hired, even if better candidates are available.
An example might be, There are certain "mission" critical people of certain ethnic groups that may need to be employed for various reason, in that case, the best candidate of that group needs to get the job.
I agree.
One of the biggest issues is actually the abuse of "merit". What is referred to as a "meritocracy", which is what we are meant to have, is actually a "mediocracy". You would be familiar with the term "fit"?
Basically in most areas psychometric testing is no longer used, nor are boards or panels, or basically anything that can sort the wheat from the chaff, it's all down to who the interviewers like the most in the twenty minute interview. Promotion is based on who management chooses to lift above others.
It usually isn't the best candidate, the most qualified or most capable, it's who they like the most out of those who meet the minimum requirements.
The statistics are quite interesting, people who are considered high flyers, go getters, management material, are usually in the upper level, but not the top of normal, i.e. an IQ of 105 to 110, but not 115. So a manager is interviewing a candidate who is much smarter than that, do you think they will hire them? Sadly, the truth is no, many managers only hire smart people for very specific roles where the person is no threat to them, or not at all.
One thing the average mediocre manager hates more than a smarter, more talented person who looks like them, is a smarter more talented person who doesn't look like them.
