It is amazing to me (and maybe it should not be) that the discussion about hiring underrepresented groups often turns to a conversation about the ills of quotas and the fear of under-qualifications. “We have to be careful that this does not seem like quotas and we have to make sure that we are hiring qualified candidates” is far too often the response in discussion about visibly diverse representation. So let’s get a couple of things straight.
# 1. Quotas are illegal unless sanctioned by a court as a result of proof that there has been a pattern of willful discrimination in not hiring underrepresented groups. Quotas are used to fix illegal practices.
#2. There is never a guarantee that the candidate is truly qualified for a position until they are hired and start performing. People may look good on paper but not be able to live up to performance expectation. Studies have shown that people of color and women often need to be “overqualified” to be selected and white men are often hired and/or promoted based on potential. So why do we still hear more often than not phrases like we are looking for “qualified minority candidates”? Why do we feel a need to “qualify” our statements about qualifications when it relates to historically underrepresented groups? I don’t think I have ever heard, “we are looking for qualified white men.”
Here are my thoughts about why the “two Qs” seem to make it into many conversations about recruiting underrepresented groups.
Leaders who have been in the workplace long enough (more than 25 years) may remember the initial push to increase representation and it felt like quotas. When affirmative action goals were not being met, the company may have mandated that the next hire will be a woman or a person of color. Backed against the wall with no choice, hiring managers may have selected individuals who were not as qualified for the work. Some did it intentionally so they could say, “see I told you so.” Or, “we hired one of them and they did not work out, so I don’t want to take a chance on another one.”
I think another reason that there is concern about “the Qs” is that many organizations have been comfortable with nepotism. Managers want to hire who they want to hire—often people they know and it is likely that people they know look like them. It is not uncommon for job descriptions to be narrowly written such that only one person would meet the requirements…the manager’s pick. So it is futile for anyone else to even put their name in the running.
The third reason is that we are still uncomfortable with diversity. Will this “different” person fit? Will we have to watch our language because we have hired a woman? We won’t be able to tell our ethnic jokes anymore. Leaders may also be uncomfortable in managing difference, afraid that they may be accused of insensitivity. Let’s face it, it is just easier to hire people who are like you.
The reality though, is that with the changing demographics, globalization and generational diversity, leaders will not have the same pools to draw from as in the past. There will be more visibly diverse candidates, more women, more people from different geographies and leaders will have to learn to be more culturally competent in managing diversity.
