When competing for jobs, one's ability to produce results is usually important. It can, however, be relatively far down the list if selecting a certain job candidate makes the decision makers feel good about themselves. For example, Candidate A may have far more experience and a proven track record but if the selection board members perceive that by selecting Candidate D they'll be regarded (and will see themselves) as more hip, less biased, daringly unconventional, or compassionate, then the smart money may shift to D.
This practice drives those of us who are merit and results-oriented right up the wall. It is a reminder of the gross subjectivity of the Bad Old Days when merit didn't matter and indefensible discrimination was common. In those dim times, intangibles were cited, cosmic vibrations consulted and - presto - people magically resembling the selection board members wound up with the job.
The process is more sophisticated nowadays when a feel-good candidate is in contention. There is less cloning and more self-back-patting. At least in the past, there was an attempt to claim that merit mattered and some pencil-whipping was done to prove that the desired round peg did indeed fit in a square hole. Now, you can find folks who will argue that performance is a secondary consideration and less measurable factors are more important.
Wink.
Those "less measurable" items may vary but they'll have a common characteristic: they make the decision makers feel better about themselves in an altruistic and not a selfish way.
A statement is being made and it is not as much about the job candidates as it is about the selection board.
This may be hell on the organization and on merit, but when you are peddling cheap nobility, there will always be a sizable market.
No comments:
Post a Comment