I'm not using an external measure. It's quite simple. Company A needs a person, perhaps, fluent in Chinese and knowledgeable of their customs. Based on past experiences, perhaps Company A also decides for THEIR TYPE OF business, a woman would NOT be received well by their foreign customers. Therefore, they decide that, for their business, a man who is familiar with the language and customs would be best FOR THAT POSITION. That's not discrimination, that's hiring the best qualified person for THAT position. But let's say Company A has no need for concern about another country's values/language....they simply need someone who's good at accounting software...has no interaction with foreign clients to worry about. You mean to tell me that hiring to fill a quota would best serve the company's needs when what that company needs is a human being who's savvy with computers and accounting practices? and looking over a white male who EXCELS in that area and hires a minority woman who does not excel is a better practice for the company's business needs? maybe it fills a PR/PC need, but it doesn't fill the needs to have the BEST QUALIFIED for the accounting/software position.
Well said Nic!
"You mean to tell me that hiring to fill a quota would best serve the company's needs when what that company needs is a human being who's savvy with computers and accounting practices?"
First of all, my father's advance in management at a very large company was stopped because even though he had the very highest ratings he was told there would be no open slots for white men for 10 years unless they were selected for the very highest levels of management so I am personally as well as theoretically opposed to quotas.
But I am not ready to condemn Miers for suggesting as a private citizen that law firms try to diversify ad to set measurable targets.