A USA based job is posted where the applicant will have to travel to and deal with customers from Country X.
Country X has cultural elements that are unique and business relevant.
Two people have applied for this job.
One applicant was born and raised in Country X before becoming a citizen in the USA.
The other person has roughly equivalent qualifications, but was born in the USA and has had no significant interaction with people of Country X.
In this case, the ethnicity of one applicant is relevant to their ability to succeed in the job. They will be intimately more familiar with the country of the customer and will likely form better relationships with customers.
Should the hiring manager consider the ethnicity of the applicants?
Is this racial discrimination to hire that person over the other?
If you were the hiring manager, how would you handle this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
The second applicant does not have the same qualifications, because the first applicant has more relevant knowledge and experience. The first applicant should be hired based on those qualifications, not simply because of his race.
A USA based job is posted where the applicant will have to travel to and deal with customers from Country X.
Country X has cultural elements that are unique and business relevant.
Two people have applied for this job.
One applicant was born and raised in Country X before becoming a citizen in the USA.
The other person has roughly equivalent qualifications, but was born in the USA and has had no significant interaction with people of Country X.
In this case, the ethnicity of one applicant is relevant to their ability to succeed in the job. They will be intimately more familiar with the country of the customer and will likely form better relationships with customers.
Should the hiring manager consider the ethnicity of the applicants?
Is this racial discrimination to hire that person over the other?
If you were the hiring manager, how would you handle this?
I am having a hard time evaluating this scenario because i think the bolded parts are a contradiction. They are roughly equal, but you can show a superior characteristic.
I would hire the more qualified person and by your description it seems to be the one born in country X
There are two employees at a company. One is a skilled manager and over time has shown to minimize costs and earn the respect of the workers he manages. This employee does not know the culture of country X and has little dealings with that side of the company.
Another employee at a foreign office has shown skill in communicating with the local population. Which has int urn lead the company to gain market share in country X. This employee has never had the opportunity to manage employees.
Both employees apply for a new office branch in country X. After upper management evaluated both employees different strengths could be described, but not a clear best employee could be decided upon.
Which one do you choose for the top position and why?
Personally I would chose the proven manager. You can always find local people that know the area. It is much harder to find a good boss. So why the might be equal on paper. One skill set is harder to find.
There are two employees at a company. One is a skilled manager and over time has shown to minimize costs and earn the respect of the workers he manages. This employee does not know the culture of country X and has little dealings with that side of the company.
Another employee at a foreign office has shown skill in communicating with the local population. Which has int urn lead the company to gain market share in country X. This employee has never had the opportunity to manage employees.
Both employees apply for a new office branch in country X. After upper management evaluated both employees different strengths could be described, but not a clear best employee could be decided upon.
Which one do you choose for the top position and why?
Personally I would chose the proven manager. You can always find local people that know the area. It is much harder to find a good boss. So why the might be equal on paper. One skill set is harder to find.
This scenario would have no issue of ethics, though. It's simply a preference of skillset for a particular job.
This scenario would have no issue of ethics, though. It's simply a preference of skillset for a particular job.
Yes in my decision, but what about someone that preferred local knowledge over management. Would the ethnicity of that applicant that did not get job mean they were discriminated against.
The OP premise is trying to show how one ethnicity might have an advantage over another....however, in his/her analogy the ethnicity is irrelevant. What is being distinguished is not where one comes from but what is, is experience. This is not a good example to prove ethnic advantage....
If you work for a petroleum company and they want to send people to lets say Saudi Arabia then unfortunately it is going to have to be a man. Unfair I know but still that is the reality.
Companies have the right to hire people on whatever basis they think is correct. You may not like it but they can hire the people they want. After all it is their money they can spend how they like.
I am having a hard time evaluating this scenario because i think the bolded parts are a contradiction. They are roughly equal, but you can show a superior characteristic.
I thought I was very clear when I said "roughly the same qualifications, but..." That is to say, apart from where they were born, they have similar backgrounds.
The OP premise is trying to show how one ethnicity might have an advantage over another....however, in his/her analogy the ethnicity is irrelevant. What is being distinguished is not where one comes from but what is, is experience. This is not a good example to prove ethnic advantage....
I'm not trying to show one ethnicity having an advantage. I'm seeing this situation at work right now, and I'm really not sure of its ramifications.
We have an internal job that's opened up and two applicants who have roughly the same qualifications, except for where they grew up. I want to know if the manager is "right" to decide by considering ethnicity as a qualification.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
One guy has all the qualifications he needs for the job, but the other guy has all the same qualifications + a bonus that's likely incredibly relevant.
You're not hiring the latter just because he's from "country X" - that's discrimination - you're hiring him because you believe that being from "country X" will allow him to do a superior job.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
In this particular example, ethnicity becomes tangential since there is a clear skill set difference that makes one candidate preferable.
Say the person born and raised in Country X was actually the child of American diplomats stationed in that country rather than a someone native to that country. Would that make him/her less desirable candidate than someone who never visited that country?
Your scenario would be more debatable if the first candidate was technically from an ethnic group from Country X but was actually a third generation American and had no significant experience with Country X?
One guy has all the qualifications he needs for the job, but the other guy has all the same qualifications + a bonus that's likely incredibly relevant.
You're not hiring the latter just because he's from "country X" - that's discrimination - you're hiring him because you believe that being from "country X" will allow him to do a superior job.
Pretty much this. He has all of necessary qualifications plus his ethnicity might make him more approachable to the prospective customers. If he was less qualified but was hired anyway or was hired to meet some artificial diversity quota, that would be discrimination, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
I think the fact that one of the applicants has cultural experience in the target area is relevant qualifications.
To balance this equation out the scenario would have to be modified to be between say someone that is of the same race as the target area but was not brought up in or around the culture (for example an adopted Korean child raised in the US by white parents) so then both candidates would have the same qualifications other than looking like the people they would be working with... or if the non-ethnic candidate did some sort of work or study that would close the gap of having grown up in the culture like doing a year long study abroad to the target country.
If you are asking "can the fact that this guy is Indian and grew up in that culture and the job is working with people from India be taken into consideration?" I believe the answer is yes.
If you are asking "can the fact that this guy looks brown and the job is working with other brown people be taken into consideration?" I think the answer should be no.
Is anyone at your work voicing objections to this, Dechs?
No one has that I've heard. I could easily see, though, how someone would raise a stink about it. Both applicants are the same, except for the country of their birth. That lead to experience that the other could never have obtained through no fault of their own.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the manager is right in this case. This was basically a sanity check for myself, although I did expect a bit more of a debate.
To balance this equation out the scenario would have to be modified to be between say someone that is of the same race as the target area but was not brought up in or around the culture (for example an adopted Korean child raised in the US by white parents) so then both candidates would have the same qualifications other than looking like the people they would be working with... or if the non-ethnic candidate did some sort of work or study that would close the gap of having grown up in the culture like doing a year long study abroad to the target country.
If you are asking "can the fact that this guy is Indian and grew up in that culture and the job is working with people from India be taken into consideration?" I believe the answer is yes.
If you are asking "can the fact that this guy looks brown and the job is working with other brown people be taken into consideration?" I think the answer should be no.
I think you're right. If this weren't so cut and dry about the experience, then yeah, it could be a bit dicey. I bet the most fuzzy this case could get is when it's a second or third generation ethnic, raised by parents who are aware of their culture but not passing much of it on.
Anyway, thanks everyone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
You're confusing nationality with ethnicity. Nationality is a country of origin, and whether a company will hire based on nationality is an issue of immigration and labor law rather than civil rights law. Ethnicity refers to groups of people who share a common language, cultural experience, and/or history. This would be a civil rights issue.
A USA based job is posted where the applicant will have to travel to and deal with customers from Country X.
Country X has cultural elements that are unique and business relevant.
Two people have applied for this job.
One applicant was born and raised in Country X before becoming a citizen in the USA.
The other person has roughly equivalent qualifications, but was born in the USA and has had no significant interaction with people of Country X.
In this case, the ethnicity of one applicant is relevant to their ability to succeed in the job. They will be intimately more familiar with the country of the customer and will likely form better relationships with customers.
Should the hiring manager consider the ethnicity of the applicants?
Is this racial discrimination to hire that person over the other?
If you were the hiring manager, how would you handle this?
It depends.
If someone has a cultural advantage then of course I would look at that. I would hire a native spanish speaker (assuming they spoke fluent English) over someone who had decent-ish spanish speaking ability, for jobs in which Spanish-English language barriers would need to be crossed on multiple occasions.
I might for sales reasons hire someone who I felt the target customers would relate to more, this again assuming if the other qualifications were equal or at least very close.
In both cases it is not racist in the sense that I would believe that either race was innately a better choice for the job.
If I chose a black guy to be a locksmith because I assumed he knew how to break into houses....then that would be racist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A USA based job is posted where the applicant will have to travel to and deal with customers from Country X.
Country X has cultural elements that are unique and business relevant.
Two people have applied for this job.
One applicant was born and raised in Country X before becoming a citizen in the USA.
The other person has roughly equivalent qualifications, but was born in the USA and has had no significant interaction with people of Country X.
In this case, the ethnicity of one applicant is relevant to their ability to succeed in the job. They will be intimately more familiar with the country of the customer and will likely form better relationships with customers.
Should the hiring manager consider the ethnicity of the applicants?
Is this racial discrimination to hire that person over the other?
If you were the hiring manager, how would you handle this?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No discrimination
No discrimination
I am having a hard time evaluating this scenario because i think the bolded parts are a contradiction. They are roughly equal, but you can show a superior characteristic.
I would hire the more qualified person and by your description it seems to be the one born in country X
Maybe this scenario is what you wanted.
There are two employees at a company. One is a skilled manager and over time has shown to minimize costs and earn the respect of the workers he manages. This employee does not know the culture of country X and has little dealings with that side of the company.
Another employee at a foreign office has shown skill in communicating with the local population. Which has int urn lead the company to gain market share in country X. This employee has never had the opportunity to manage employees.
Both employees apply for a new office branch in country X. After upper management evaluated both employees different strengths could be described, but not a clear best employee could be decided upon.
Which one do you choose for the top position and why?
Personally I would chose the proven manager. You can always find local people that know the area. It is much harder to find a good boss. So why the might be equal on paper. One skill set is harder to find.
This scenario would have no issue of ethics, though. It's simply a preference of skillset for a particular job.
Yes in my decision, but what about someone that preferred local knowledge over management. Would the ethnicity of that applicant that did not get job mean they were discriminated against.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Companies have the right to hire people on whatever basis they think is correct. You may not like it but they can hire the people they want. After all it is their money they can spend how they like.
I thought I was very clear when I said "roughly the same qualifications, but..." That is to say, apart from where they were born, they have similar backgrounds.
I'm not trying to show one ethnicity having an advantage. I'm seeing this situation at work right now, and I'm really not sure of its ramifications.
We have an internal job that's opened up and two applicants who have roughly the same qualifications, except for where they grew up. I want to know if the manager is "right" to decide by considering ethnicity as a qualification.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
One guy has all the qualifications he needs for the job, but the other guy has all the same qualifications + a bonus that's likely incredibly relevant.
You're not hiring the latter just because he's from "country X" - that's discrimination - you're hiring him because you believe that being from "country X" will allow him to do a superior job.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Is anyone at your work voicing objections to this, Dechs?
Say the person born and raised in Country X was actually the child of American diplomats stationed in that country rather than a someone native to that country. Would that make him/her less desirable candidate than someone who never visited that country?
Your scenario would be more debatable if the first candidate was technically from an ethnic group from Country X but was actually a third generation American and had no significant experience with Country X?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Pretty much this. He has all of necessary qualifications plus his ethnicity might make him more approachable to the prospective customers. If he was less qualified but was hired anyway or was hired to meet some artificial diversity quota, that would be discrimination, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
To balance this equation out the scenario would have to be modified to be between say someone that is of the same race as the target area but was not brought up in or around the culture (for example an adopted Korean child raised in the US by white parents) so then both candidates would have the same qualifications other than looking like the people they would be working with... or if the non-ethnic candidate did some sort of work or study that would close the gap of having grown up in the culture like doing a year long study abroad to the target country.
If you are asking "can the fact that this guy is Indian and grew up in that culture and the job is working with people from India be taken into consideration?" I believe the answer is yes.
If you are asking "can the fact that this guy looks brown and the job is working with other brown people be taken into consideration?" I think the answer should be no.
No one has that I've heard. I could easily see, though, how someone would raise a stink about it. Both applicants are the same, except for the country of their birth. That lead to experience that the other could never have obtained through no fault of their own.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the manager is right in this case. This was basically a sanity check for myself, although I did expect a bit more of a debate.
I think you're right. If this weren't so cut and dry about the experience, then yeah, it could be a bit dicey. I bet the most fuzzy this case could get is when it's a second or third generation ethnic, raised by parents who are aware of their culture but not passing much of it on.
Anyway, thanks everyone.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
It depends.
If someone has a cultural advantage then of course I would look at that. I would hire a native spanish speaker (assuming they spoke fluent English) over someone who had decent-ish spanish speaking ability, for jobs in which Spanish-English language barriers would need to be crossed on multiple occasions.
I might for sales reasons hire someone who I felt the target customers would relate to more, this again assuming if the other qualifications were equal or at least very close.
In both cases it is not racist in the sense that I would believe that either race was innately a better choice for the job.
If I chose a black guy to be a locksmith because I assumed he knew how to break into houses....then that would be racist.