|
Obdicut posted:THis undervalues people who can affect or change the system, though. This is predicated on an idea that your system and culture as they are currently is superior and doesn't need to be changed. A lot of good employers, especially when looking for candidates for top positions, actually actively look for people who can shake up and change the culture, so what you're saying isn't even strictly true. While I'm having a hard time figuring out where the daylight is between "the culture of the business" and "having the same basic profile of the people who do the hiring/run the business," there is something to be said for social fit. It's not just a matter of "will he do his job right," but "will I want to summarily execute him after 60 straight hours in the office trying to get something out the door on a tight deadline."
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Except per Griggs (though obviously in light of Ricci, who the gently caress even knows where the law is on this issue now, thanks Roberts Court), you can still implement a test if the test actually pertains to the ability to do the job in question. You just can't implement a test with disparate results for the fun of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
on the left posted:You can't use a general aptitude test, which would seem like a pretty good test for a lot of white-collar jobs. The problem is that "seems like a pretty good test" is not "is a pretty good test." For example, a 1991 article from the NYT discusses how the well-known General Aptitude Test Battery not only disproportionately screened out minorities, but actually tended to underpredict minority job performance and overpredict white job performance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 04:07
|
|