My friend, who works as a license renewal and hiring manager at a large tech security firm, once shared something interesting with me. He said that when hiring under his company’s DEI standards, he sometimes had to bring on someone who wasn’t the strongest candidate for the role. The goal was to meet diversity requirements, but the tradeoff was that it occasionally meant hiring someone less qualified.
According to him, if a hire brought in under those standards didn’t perform well, it could be harder for the company to let that person go. The emphasis on maintaining diversity created extra pressure to hold on, even when performance wasn’t where it needed to be. That situation, understandably, can affect the rest of the team.
Personally, I don’t have anything against DEI. In fact, I think it helps reduce nepotism, which is a positive. But I also don’t think DEI always works out the way people imagine it will. Like many policies, it has both benefits and downsides.
The reason I bring this up is because I think it’s a slippery slope when governments start drawing hard lines about who can and cannot be fired. At the end of the day, what tends to matter most is whether someone makes the company money.
Take my friend as an example again: he’s only required to bring in $250,000 each quarter, but he actually brings in around $4 million. Because of that, he has survived multiple layoffs and has even been moved to different departments, simply because his performance makes him too valuable to lose.
That’s not how DEI policies are supposed to be applied. You’re not supposed to just reverse who’s being discriminated against. DEI means that you consider equivalent factors and ensure that your hiring pipeline and methodology doesn’t improperly harm certain classes.
For example, you have two new hires coming straight out of the same college with the same degree.
One of them grew up in a rather wealthy household. Everything was paid for them. They could spend their entire time at college focusing on schoolwork and socializing. They graduated with a 3.5 GPA.
The other grew up rather poor. They had to work multiple jobs during college just to afford food and rent. They really couldn’t study except late at night and during the occasional lull at work. They graduated with a 2.8.
If you just look at the GPA, it’s clear that the first candidate is better. But if you consider the factors behind it, well, then it’s the second. That’s an impressive work ethic. It’s rather common for people like that to drop out because they struggle too much making ends meet and can’t afford to stay.
A proper DEI policy should be fighting back against misapplied policies like hiring quotas. It should be recognizing additional qualitative and quantitative factors.
My friend, who works as a license renewal and hiring manager at a large tech security firm, once shared something interesting with me. He said that when hiring under his company’s DEI standards, he sometimes had to bring on someone who wasn’t the strongest candidate for the role. The goal was to meet diversity requirements, but the tradeoff was that it occasionally meant hiring someone less qualified.
According to him, if a hire brought in under those standards didn’t perform well, it could be harder for the company to let that person go. The emphasis on maintaining diversity created extra pressure to hold on, even when performance wasn’t where it needed to be. That situation, understandably, can affect the rest of the team.
Personally, I don’t have anything against DEI. In fact, I think it helps reduce nepotism, which is a positive. But I also don’t think DEI always works out the way people imagine it will. Like many policies, it has both benefits and downsides.
The reason I bring this up is because I think it’s a slippery slope when governments start drawing hard lines about who can and cannot be fired. At the end of the day, what tends to matter most is whether someone makes the company money.
Take my friend as an example again: he’s only required to bring in $250,000 each quarter, but he actually brings in around $4 million. Because of that, he has survived multiple layoffs and has even been moved to different departments, simply because his performance makes him too valuable to lose.
That’s not how DEI policies are supposed to be applied. You’re not supposed to just reverse who’s being discriminated against. DEI means that you consider equivalent factors and ensure that your hiring pipeline and methodology doesn’t improperly harm certain classes.
For example, you have two new hires coming straight out of the same college with the same degree.
One of them grew up in a rather wealthy household. Everything was paid for them. They could spend their entire time at college focusing on schoolwork and socializing. They graduated with a 3.5 GPA.
The other grew up rather poor. They had to work multiple jobs during college just to afford food and rent. They really couldn’t study except late at night and during the occasional lull at work. They graduated with a 2.8.
If you just look at the GPA, it’s clear that the first candidate is better. But if you consider the factors behind it, well, then it’s the second. That’s an impressive work ethic. It’s rather common for people like that to drop out because they struggle too much making ends meet and can’t afford to stay.
A proper DEI policy should be fighting back against misapplied policies like hiring quotas. It should be recognizing additional qualitative and quantitative factors.
Probation period is commonly 6 months during which time it’s basically at will employment. This is the time to figure out your hire and deal with it.