I had to read three articles on critical theory and hiring. It gives me problems. It's about not hiring the "best person" for the job, but rather to make changes or make things "equitable." Anna wanted more discussion on it so I gave it some more thought, this time a bit more of the self-authorship kind of thinking.
I think that the articles tend to show, and this tends to make sense, the hiring managers and committees need to be sure of their goals, and that the processes fit those goals. Having hired quite a few folks in my life, I know how subjective the process becomes. In the past few hiring decisions I've made, I've been a part of a group of four and even we all had our own framework, and model for making that decision. We performed over 25 interviews for this position, and each of us had our set of questions, and I know that I took notes and ranked each candidate on a series of characteristics and traits. But, were these the right characteristics and traits for our goals? Did the rest of the committee know them and help me with them?
In this case our goal was to hire the most well-trained candidate in terms of their training delivery and administration. That was the stated goal, and the search looked for the deepest resume of work in our industry, credentials for training and a background and record of administrative success. In terms of higher education and equity, or diversifying the higher education admin and instructing workforce, if that is your stated goal, then the questions and the search need to reflect that goal specifically. I think that the goal should be shared across the team and the process must be aligned to meet that goal. If our goal was the deepest training record, but there was a candidate without a deep record of training but a terrific personality match, we bypassed that personality match. Same can be said for hiring for diversity. A great candidate for teaching and instruction could show up, but the committee needs to be okay with, and anyone else involved should be ready to accept that that candidate isn't what they are looking for for this position. There is no perfect candidate for every goal you might have, it's a subjective process. And everyone needs to be aligned in their goals, understand the goals, and be sure that the framework and process accurately reflect that goal and finally, that that has been communicated not just within the group but to anyone affected.
The discussion reminds me of our current politics. Biden declared that he would pick a female VP candidate when he ran for president, and that's exactly what he did. His goal was stated and communicated (Alter, 2020). Should we be surprised now that he followed-through? I find it funny that he takes so much flack for that decision. There are many articles and stories in the press bemoaning the fact that she was a diversity hire, and that the best person wasn't picked for the job (Coleman, 2021; Murray, 2021). The president wasn't looking for a Joe Biden Jr. in his pick. He wasn't looking for someone well-versed and understanding all the ins and outs of international affairs, or an expert in monetary theory, that wasn't the goal. If that had been the goal he might have picked Larry Summers or John Kerry. But the goal was stated and the rational sound, and best of all it was communicated. I think this is the key to changing and evolving some of these hiring challenges.
References
Alter, C. (2020, March 15). Joe Biden definitively vows to pick a woman Vice President. Time. https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/
Coleman, A. B. (2021, December 28). Kamala Harris is a diversity hire. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-diversity-hire-opinion-1663788
Murray, D. (2021, December 9). Does Kamala Harris deserve to be vice president? The Spectator. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-kamala-harris-deserve-to-be-vice-president
No comments:
Post a Comment