One thing you can say about the Trump administration: It's never dull.
The latest episode of this "reality TV" series involves a "tell-all" (or tell more-than-all) book by Omarosa Manigault Newman. In the book and in a series of announcements and interviews hyping her book, Newman claims President Trump said all sorts of sordid things, including, allegedly, using the N-word.
Don't just take her word for it. She has tapes, and she's played some for the public's consumption (but not — so far — the president using the N-word in conversations). Some debate has arisen in the media over whether Newman has any credibility, despite the tapes supporting some of her claims. An interview early in her book-hyping blitz revealed a contradiction in her account of whether she had heard a damning tape of the president or had only heard of it. This thing isn't over, but news media (including the "mainstream media" Trump hates so much) are looking on the former White House aide with more than the usual skepticism.
What is particularly alarming to the news media gatekeepers is Newman's apparent total disregard for personal honesty and integrity and even for national security. One of her tapes was allegedly made in the White House Situation Room, a tightly controlled and closely monitored secure room that requires a high security clearance for entry. Sneaking a recording device into the room is a breach of national security and may even be a criminal act. Newman doesn't seem to care about national security and has offered no regrets over her extraordinary action.
Trump has reacted in his usual way, attacking his former trusted aide, calling her names and threatening legal action against her. But this is a crisis of his own making. Newman got the job, it seems, because she had appeared on Trump's television show, "The Apprentice," and she lavished praise on him as she sought a White House job following his election. The president was shocked that she would "go rogue" and turn out to be a threat to national security and (more important to Trump) his presidency. After all, the president said, "she said great things about me."
You would think that Trump, if he were the astute, brilliant businessman he claims to be, would know that hiring employees on the basis of how well they lick your boots is not a sound policy.
My experience as a manager who hires employees proved to me that hiring is the hardest part of any management job. A good hire can make your life easier. A bad hire can be a lingering nightmare. It's the most important thing a manager does and the most difficult.
As president, Trump has a pretty crummy record in hiring staff. He has put his daughter and son-in-law on the payroll as advisers. His son runs the family business. In most corporations, this would be forbidden nepotism. The list of Cabinet secretaries and other high officials who have had to resign is long. Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator is just the latest embarrassment of ethical lapses and luxury spending that included HHS secretary Tom Price. The departures began with Michael Flynn, caught lying about contacts with Russians. That kind of turnover, including several people Trump has fired, would raise red flags in any business.
Showing posts with label hiring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hiring. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Race, testing and hiring: It's complicated
Only a week after dodging a racially charged controversy in a Voting Rights Act challenge, the Supreme Court on Monday grabbed the high-voltage issue and declared that fear of a racial discrimination lawsuit is no reason to discriminate on account of race. The case involves New Haven, Conn., firefighters who studied for and passed a promotion exam, only to have the city throw out the professionally designed test because no African-Americans passed the test.
The court ruled, 5-4, in favor of the white firefighters, who claimed they had been discriminated against on account of their race. Given the facts of the case, it's hard to conclude otherwise. The city had a consultant design a promotion exam that would be racially/culturally neutral. Firefighters took the test. Upon discovering only white firefighters qualified for promotion and fearing a racial bias lawsuit by minority firefighters who scored lower on the test, the city of New Haven threw out the results and declared that the exam would not be used in the promotion process. No one denies that the city's decision was based on race.
The fundamental problem lies in civil rights law. Federal law prohibits not only "disparate intent," i.e., deliberate discrimination on account of race, but also "disparate impact" — anything that affects racial groups differently. Although New Haven had no intention of discriminating against minority firefighters, its promotion exam, professionally designed and carefully cleansed of any racial or cultural bias, did have a disparate impact. The city found itself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
The court's majority focused on the fact that, once the test results were in, the city's subsequent reactions were based on race. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and three colleagues argued that disparate intent and disparate impact are complementary and, therefore, New Haven' actions were justifiable. It's hard to imagine how the city could create a new exam or promotion process without risking disparate impact.
Civil rights law has led to an exponential complication of the hiring process, especially in large corporations and governments. Each step of the process must be carefully vetted for any possibility of racial or cultural bias, and only tangible, documentable evidence can be used as a basis for hiring. New Haven's promotion test counted for 60 percent of the promotion consideration, for example. But, generally speaking, people are not hired to take tests; they are hired to perform tasks, manage others or delegate responsibilities. Tests might give an indication of occupational knowledge and familiarity with management processes, but it's hard to design a test that assesses one's work ethic, interpersonal skills, work demeanor and ability to get along with others. Those attributes often are the difference between success and failure in any job. I once told a somewhat under-qualified job applicant that if I hired her to be a reporter, I could teach her to write, but I couldn't teach her to work. To learn to write, she would have to be a hard worker, and that's an attribute neither I nor a college degree could grant her. She assured me she would be a hard worker; I hired her, and she did very well in the job as she worked hard at learning to write. Had I gone entirely by the applicant's experience and test scores, I probably could not have hired her.
A good hiring decision sometimes comes down to a gut feeling, the positive impression that someone makes in an interview, but it's impossible to defend a gut feeling against a claim of bias.
The court ruled, 5-4, in favor of the white firefighters, who claimed they had been discriminated against on account of their race. Given the facts of the case, it's hard to conclude otherwise. The city had a consultant design a promotion exam that would be racially/culturally neutral. Firefighters took the test. Upon discovering only white firefighters qualified for promotion and fearing a racial bias lawsuit by minority firefighters who scored lower on the test, the city of New Haven threw out the results and declared that the exam would not be used in the promotion process. No one denies that the city's decision was based on race.
The fundamental problem lies in civil rights law. Federal law prohibits not only "disparate intent," i.e., deliberate discrimination on account of race, but also "disparate impact" — anything that affects racial groups differently. Although New Haven had no intention of discriminating against minority firefighters, its promotion exam, professionally designed and carefully cleansed of any racial or cultural bias, did have a disparate impact. The city found itself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
The court's majority focused on the fact that, once the test results were in, the city's subsequent reactions were based on race. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and three colleagues argued that disparate intent and disparate impact are complementary and, therefore, New Haven' actions were justifiable. It's hard to imagine how the city could create a new exam or promotion process without risking disparate impact.
Civil rights law has led to an exponential complication of the hiring process, especially in large corporations and governments. Each step of the process must be carefully vetted for any possibility of racial or cultural bias, and only tangible, documentable evidence can be used as a basis for hiring. New Haven's promotion test counted for 60 percent of the promotion consideration, for example. But, generally speaking, people are not hired to take tests; they are hired to perform tasks, manage others or delegate responsibilities. Tests might give an indication of occupational knowledge and familiarity with management processes, but it's hard to design a test that assesses one's work ethic, interpersonal skills, work demeanor and ability to get along with others. Those attributes often are the difference between success and failure in any job. I once told a somewhat under-qualified job applicant that if I hired her to be a reporter, I could teach her to write, but I couldn't teach her to work. To learn to write, she would have to be a hard worker, and that's an attribute neither I nor a college degree could grant her. She assured me she would be a hard worker; I hired her, and she did very well in the job as she worked hard at learning to write. Had I gone entirely by the applicant's experience and test scores, I probably could not have hired her.
A good hiring decision sometimes comes down to a gut feeling, the positive impression that someone makes in an interview, but it's impossible to defend a gut feeling against a claim of bias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
