You -- and you know who you are -- need not apply

Worked at a place where the bosses "overpaid" (by the joint's meager standards in the first place) to make a diversity hire. Salary info got out and it tore apart a strong department. Two-thirds of staff was ticked off that newcomer, with less experience and someone whose copy needed major help, was started at a pay level beyond theirs. One-third, whose copy needed help too and didn't work any harder than the newcomer, were ticked off anyway about someone raw starting at relatively senior pay.

Ultimately, that place had plenty of other problems. But that was the beginning of the end.

This might be rare, but maybe it shows how all of these preferences and wrongheadedness cut in all directions. In my view, they should be avoided whenever possible. In other words, even if nine white guys get jobs at nine newspapers, I think it's still wrong for that 10th paper to say, "We're only interviewing minorities for this job. You need not apply." What the first nine did, however they handled it, doesn't make the 10th place any less wrong.

 

Worked at a paper where the SE handed me clips of several candidates -- and everyone knew we were going to hire a minority -- and SE told me to basically grade on the curve because they were minority candidates. Couldn't believe it when I heard it. Also couldn't believe a couple of these candidates were even considered, based on how bad their clips were. The hire was OK, but it said a lot about the process.

 

An interesting illustration of what's under discussion here.

Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., for almost 20 years — the only woman who ever managed to stick it out in what was not exactly a female-friendly environment. When she was near retirement, she got an anonymous letter listing the salaries of the men who held the same job. While she was making $3,727 a month, the lowest paid man, with far less seniority, was getting $4,286.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/26collins.html?em&ex=1209441600&en=b359000e3c94c761&ei=5087%0A

 

That's also an interesting illustration of how much real dough can be made in Goodyear Tire plants, relative to journalism.

$3,727 x 12 months = $44,724.
$4,286 x 12 months = $51,432.
Way better benefits, surely, than your typical newsrag.
And Alabama cost of living.

 

Sure, it'll be great until the plant closes. That would never happen in our profession.

Wait. Never mind.

 

The one time I went through the hiring process and brought in someone full-time, I looked simply for the best person available. I wasn't going to ignore diversity, but I wanted the best fit for the position, period.

There were some good people who walked in for interviews. Obviously, some were better than others. As a first-time hiring manager, I was nervous about facing down the prospect of someone accusing me of being prejudiced in my hiring practices, so I documented everything about the candidates after I interviewed them. I wrote notes down about how each one interviewed, what I thought of their clips packages and whether I thought they would mesh with the staff we already had.

I ended up basically having a choice between two candidates. Both dressed professionally (you'd be surprised at what some people I've interviewed for jobs wore!), both had impressive clips packages, both seemed like they'd be great fits in the office culture. Both also sent thank you notes. All things being equal, I would have had an extremely tough decision.

The guy I ultimately hired sent me a handwritten note which I received the day after the interview. He also pitched a story to me and made it clear that he'd already made the contacts, and he got it to me by the deadline he'd stated. And I thought it was well done. Those things made my decision easier. Plus, he already knew Quark and the other candidate didn't. Needless to say, he was the guy I hired.

When I sent out the "no hire" letters, I broke them down into categories. One category was people who just weren't that good, and I spun 'em a little bit. The other was people who were good, but weren't quite in the final two. The last was the guy who lost out to the guy I hired. In that one, I wrote: "Frankly, if I had two positions available, I'd hire you for one of them." He was that good.

If I'd hired on first instinct, I still would have hired the guy I ended up hiring. But I was determined to go through the process. I felt I owed it my due diligence.

The ironic thing is, even though by all accounts, the hire went well and the guy worked out, even though he left for a better gig two and a half months after I hired him, I changed my hiring process to include having the candidate meet with my full-time reporter. And I'd ask for her feedback after the candidate left.

You have to think about a lot of factors when you hire someone. It's an inexact science.

 

Forever,

Next time hire your second choice. Maybe he'll stay three months.

 

The irony is, one of the reasons I went with the first choice guy was I though the other guy would have left in two months.

 

I used to work for a very-PC paper and they privately make decisions on open positions that only a minority will do. They're hush-hush about it but it not only leaks out, but when they bring in four candidates and three are minorities and the lone white person is way out of his or her depth for the position, it ain't hard to figure what's going on.

They also bring in people for what I'd call sham interviews. Where they haul a woman or a black man in for an interview knowing they've already got a better candidate who is white. I always felt terrible seeing those folks trying their darndest to impress the editors when everyone around them knew they had no chance.

Do papers need more dark faces? Absolutely. But you can do more harm than good if you try too hard to make that happen too quickly.

 

Thing is, too often, that's all they're trying to hire: Dark faces. Not necessarily diversity of opinions, perspectives, backgrounds, means, outlooks, politics, talents, education or even contacts.

But when you put it that way, so starkly, it really does seem foolish.

 

Then good thing you didn't pick the short-timer.

 

So this very-PC paper brings in both white people and minority folks for sham interviews? Equal opportunity in action!!!

Is it perhaps also possible that the paper tries to interview several people for each position even if they have one slam dunk prospect in the wings?

I can recall several times when Mr. or Ms. Slam Dunk decided the job wasn't for them and we went with some poor schlub who seemed like the 3rd or 4th choice.