Which is better for business: DIVERSITY or COMPETANCE ?

United States
September 26, 2008 1:28pm CST
Yes, it is true. There is some debate as to which is better in business, DIVERSITY or COMPETANCE? Let's look at an award winning company celebrated for its diversity. http://newsroom.wamu.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=189529&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1201788&highlight= I say that if a business stuck to competance only in its hiring, the diversity would take care of itself and the resulting fewer number of companies going busted would benefit everyone. What do you say?
2 people like this
5 responses
@arkaf61 (10882)
• Canada
27 Sep 08
I agree with you. Competence should be the determining factor. As should equal opportunity for same competence. In practice, however, it often doesn't happen.We know that a lot was done in the past that shut out diversity from good employment opportunities, but it's that which needs fixing, not go to the exact opposite. A very common trend nowadays - something is not right so let's fix it by doing the exact opposite of what we've been doing. Not the best solution ever.
• United States
27 Sep 08
There was a time when the USA was such a world leader in most fields that we could afford to give up some of our edge we lost through affirmative action. Those days are gone. While we daddled, the rest of the world has passed us up in most areas except weapons development. Either we just become bullies or get back to the business of concentrating on excellance. As bullies always eventually lose, I recommend trying for excellance.
1 person likes this
@Barb42 (4217)
• United States
27 Sep 08
Competency wins with me! I had lots rather have a room full of competent workers rather than to just hire for diversity. Affirmative action has brought about the diversity to the detriment of competency lots of times.
• United States
27 Sep 08
I completely agree with you.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
26 Sep 08
Hello Red, Great question! As long as business is responsible to third party customers, client, investors, contractors ... essentially third party agents who entrust (key word ENTRUST) their money, reputation, or commitment to the business -- then the business must focus on competance! To do otherwise is immoral, in my sincerest opinion! If I take someone's money, then I owe them the very best that I can do, or at least no less than what I have contracted with them to give, provide, or perform. No 'ifs', 'ands', or 'butts'!!! If I want to have a heart in the conduct of my business, then I am certainly free to do so. Although, I must make sure that that decision never interferes with my contractual obligation. So, for example: I could hire 'trainees', and help them learn the ropes of the business world. I might hire a convict, if I was confident that no harm could come from the decision. I might commit to hiring the disabled. Regardless of the arena of 'heart', I must make sure to never allow my 'heart' to short a customer, client, investor, or contractor. As I see it, that is the ethical obligation of the entrepreneur.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Sep 08
Certainly, I agree with what you say. That it is immoral for a publically held company or a company entrusted with other's money to hire anyone other than whoever is most competant for a given job is totally correct. That the institution mentioned at the link went bankrupt and was bought out is not an accident. Any organization in a competitive environment can not afford to lose its advantage by hiring other than the best. In the long term hiring based on race, religion, national orgin, gender, or sexuality is incredibly stupid. Even the current financial crises is largely based on this kind of short sided stupidity of striving for a theoritical subjective notion of 'fairness'. Is it 'fair' for companies to go broke and people to lose their jobs to satisfy someone's arbitrary notion of 'fairness'? 'Fair' is for whoever can do the job best, irregardless of 'special considerations' to get the job. This keeps the USA competitive and people get to keep their jobs. For the USA to solve its current difficulties, in all areas of endeavor, no favoritism on the basis of race, religion, national orgin, gender, or sexuality should be allowed whatsoever.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
27 Sep 08
Hello Red, I agree that diversity's "quotas", as outlined by affirmative action is a recipe for mediocrity, or worse. And, that ANY law that requires a certain percentage of hires be based on any legally defined minority status is patently irresponsible, immoral, and unconstitutional. Irresponsible because the drafters of the law, despite any relevant experience, have interjected themselves into the entrepreneurs ability to choose the most qualified candidate, so as to maintain a commitment toward excellence. Immoral because the assertion of any mandate that prohibits an entrepreneur from conducting his or her business in the most ethical fashion possible is certainly a challenge to the moral fiber of our nation, and We The People, as we are inclined to become comfortable with moral relativity. And, unconstitutional because applying 'preferred status' to any one group of people, for any single purpose violates the "equal under the law" protections as conferred by our Constitution. Moreover, forcing an entrepreneur, under penalty of law, to conduct his or her business contrary to his or her own business plan and model most surely violates that entrepreneur's freedoms of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, I do not agree that there should be legal prohibitions against an entrepreneur considering race, sexuality, or specific personal experience when choosing a new hire. For example: If someone owns a business that specializes in African-American art, I believe that the entrepreneur should be free to consider a person of African lineage, or with first-hand experience living in Africa, before all other applicants, if that applicant is the most qualified for the job. Similarly, I believe that a Baptist Minister should be free to hire a Baptist individual to manage the church's bookstore. Would a Hindu, Catholic, or a Jewish person be as versed in Baptist teachings as say another Baptist? None can argue that if the emphasis of our great nation is never allowed to perpetuate racism by way of imposed laws, as Affirmative Action has; and if our institutions are thereby allowed to conduct themselves in the pursuit of excellence, without consideration for imposed diversity or racial restrictions or contrived expansions, then businesses should be able to redirect their focus toward that sense of greatness that forged our great society. Anything can be taken too far. In the case of Affirmative Action, which incidentally is largely a Republican achievement (see below for reference above the obvious Abraham Lincoln starting point), little question remains but that the commitment toward color-blindness has been skewed because of the implementation of short-sighted legislation. I believe that it's long past the time to consciously swing the pendulum back toward a center balance. "[i]In the Johnson Administration, the Labor Department Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) started pre-award compliance for federal contracts over $1 million. The Office began with construction contractors, who were required to set goals and timetables under a regulation issued to implement the Order in 1968. However, under pressure from unions and the General Accounting Office, which found the process too vague, OFCCP discontinued the effort. But in the most far-reaching federal expansion of affirmative action, the "goals and timetables" plan was revived by President Nixon and Labor Secretary George Shultz in 1969. In issuing the so-called "Philadelphia Order," Assistant Secretary Arthur Fletcher said: Equal employment opportunity in these [construction] trades in the Philadelphia area is still far from a reality. The unions in these trades still have only about 1.6 percent minority group membership and they continue to engage in practices, including the granting of referral priorities to union members and to persons who have work experience under union contracts, which result in few negroes being referred for employment. We find, therefore, that special measures are required to provide equal employment opportunity in these seven trades."[/i] http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa02.html
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Sep 08
One would think that in a free country, what you are mentioning as to affirmative action would not be allowed. How can the government be telling private business who to hire if this is a free country? Oh well, you can not cheat the reality of what happens when hiring less than the best. The natural consequences of stupidity will eventually straighten this mess out.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19782)
• United States
1 Oct 08
It was as brilliant as affirmative action! lmao. Will we never learn?
• United States
1 Oct 08
I think eventually we will learn, it just takes longer than anyone would imagine.
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
30 Sep 08
Yep, that diversity thing worked really well for them. Too bad they went belly up, but at east they were diverse about it. Now of course, they, along with many others are wanting a handout from the taxpayers to help them out of their foolish business practices. Actually, I guess it is too llate for them... but there's plenty of other stupid companies that we can help. Diversity ROCKS!
1 person likes this
• United States
30 Sep 08
The great thing about competition, particularily international competition is that wasteful ineficient practices have to be done away with. Diversity for its own sake is doomed.