• wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    What qualifies being qualified for a job? Should I hire the person who knows a little bit less but is really pleasant to be around and like learning new things or the person who clearly knows more but is a huge pain to be around, thinks he’s better than everyone else, and doesn’t think he has anything more to learn?

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Whatever your criteria are, as long as they aren’t based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, etc

      • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I take it you’ve never been a hiring manager or worked in HR. Hires are almost never made on an objective basis, the bias of interviewers/assessors inevitably affect outcomes. In the absence of positive discrimination, on average, this means unfair outcomes for minorities (because some people are bigots and most people have unconscious bias against out-groups).

      • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        So what you’re telling me is that being “qualified” isn’t the only criteria… But I thought you said the only thing that mattered was hiring the most qualified person…

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Qualified is intentionally a vague metric as it can include anything that makes you suitable for the job. What it does not include are protected characteristics.