http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8563122.stm
If laws forbid a school from discriminating, but not private citizens, then clearly one should just hand over the task to the citizens, rather than question whether discriminating is a good thing.
After all, if it were good, surely the country would want schools to promote it?
Or perhaps the governors think that the school rules are silly, in which case I wonder why they're governors, their job being to ensure that the rules are followed.
A private party will not cater to students' best interests because it will exclude some, thereby detracting from school life, and not have the advantage of using school facilities, which are probably designed for the right number of schoolchildren and are well located for all attendees.
Friday, 12 March 2010
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Management discrimination
'Actually, the problem with many established companies is that they don't challenge existing corporate norms, and therefore are slow to change. Japanese companies are experiencing this problem; Toyota's recent (I say recent, it's been going on for years now!!) failure to (a) identify a problem, (b) admit there was a problem, and (c) fix the problem is a prime example of how the corporate norms -- which were to be entirely subservient to senior managers, and to not displease them with bad news -- completely destroyed the reputation of a company that had long been associated with the highest standards of quality and safety.
The idea that diversity enhances a company is not new, it's been around for decades. And it's not just because it's politically correct; studies have shown that companies that adapt to fit their employees, rather than simply employ people who already fit the established mould, show better shareholder returns, because of the wider applicant pool that they can draw from. Senior managers are on-board with new ideas on how to recruit, how to reward employees, and how to fit their jobs around their families or social lives. But middle-managers -- the people who actually do the interviews -- are not. They are slow to react (there are many reasons why, but I won't get into them here) and are more fuddy-duddy than their more senior managers. They tend to employ people who are similar to them, rather than people who are fit for the job. They dress this up as wanting employees who fit to the corporate environment, even though they have been instructed not to do this by senior managers!
The problem, then, is not about fitting to corporate norms, it's that many interviewers are simply not very good at conducting interviews, don't know enough about management best-practices, and employ people who are similar to themselves, rather than people who are good for the job.'
The idea that diversity enhances a company is not new, it's been around for decades. And it's not just because it's politically correct; studies have shown that companies that adapt to fit their employees, rather than simply employ people who already fit the established mould, show better shareholder returns, because of the wider applicant pool that they can draw from. Senior managers are on-board with new ideas on how to recruit, how to reward employees, and how to fit their jobs around their families or social lives. But middle-managers -- the people who actually do the interviews -- are not. They are slow to react (there are many reasons why, but I won't get into them here) and are more fuddy-duddy than their more senior managers. They tend to employ people who are similar to them, rather than people who are fit for the job. They dress this up as wanting employees who fit to the corporate environment, even though they have been instructed not to do this by senior managers!
The problem, then, is not about fitting to corporate norms, it's that many interviewers are simply not very good at conducting interviews, don't know enough about management best-practices, and employ people who are similar to themselves, rather than people who are good for the job.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)