How would the following workplace behavior be perceived in the U.S.?
I once had a boss who promoted anyone, minority or not, whom he thought was "qualified." So far so good.
But there was one period in the company's history, where there was a massive exodus of people. This often led to their replacements through "spec"(ulative) promotions, of people who weren't clearly qualified, and in some cases were manifestly unqualified, for their new roles.
When this happened, the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates, and all of the (few) "unqualified" candidates he promoted during this period were white. (Minority candidates, including yours truly, still got their "merit" promotions.)
When I asked him about this, his answer was something like, "white people fail all the time, but when a minority fails, people remember longer. Because none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did, my higher ups nowadays scrutinize my minority promotions much less, meaning that the chances of those promotion proposals holding up are actually better.
How would this behavior be viewed? Is is racist, protective of minorities, or something else, such as "pragmatic?"
promotion discrimination
asked 1 hour ago
Tom Au
31928
add a comment |
I once had a boss who promoted anyone, minority or not, whom he thought was "qualified." So far so good.
But there was one period in the company's history, where there was a massive exodus of people. This often led to their replacements through "spec"(ulative) promotions, of people who weren't clearly qualified, and in some cases were manifestly unqualified, for their new roles.
When this happened, the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates, and all of the (few) "unqualified" candidates he promoted during this period were white. (Minority candidates, including yours truly, still got their "merit" promotions.)
When I asked him about this, his answer was something like, "white people fail all the time, but when a minority fails, people remember longer. Because none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did, my higher ups nowadays scrutinize my minority promotions much less, meaning that the chances of those promotion proposals holding up are actually better.
How would this behavior be viewed? Is is racist, protective of minorities, or something else, such as "pragmatic?"
promotion discrimination
asked 1 hour ago
Tom Au
31928
"How would this behavior be viewed? " - I view it as ridiculous. In which country did this behavior take place?
– Joe Strazzere
27 mins ago
@JoeStrazzere: Added U.S. to title to clarify. Thanks for your help.
– Tom Au
7 mins ago
add a comment |
I once had a boss who promoted anyone, minority or not, whom he thought was "qualified." So far so good.
But there was one period in the company's history, where there was a massive exodus of people. This often led to their replacements through "spec"(ulative) promotions, of people who weren't clearly qualified, and in some cases were manifestly unqualified, for their new roles.
When this happened, the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates, and all of the (few) "unqualified" candidates he promoted during this period were white. (Minority candidates, including yours truly, still got their "merit" promotions.)
When I asked him about this, his answer was something like, "white people fail all the time, but when a minority fails, people remember longer. Because none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did, my higher ups nowadays scrutinize my minority promotions much less, meaning that the chances of those promotion proposals holding up are actually better.
How would this behavior be viewed? Is is racist, protective of minorities, or something else, such as "pragmatic?"
promotion discrimination
asked 1 hour ago
Tom Au
31928
I once had a boss who promoted anyone, minority or not, whom he thought was "qualified." So far so good.
But there was one period in the company's history, where there was a massive exodus of people. This often led to their replacements through "spec"(ulative) promotions, of people who weren't clearly qualified, and in some cases were manifestly unqualified, for their new roles.
When this happened, the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates, and all of the (few) "unqualified" candidates he promoted during this period were white. (Minority candidates, including yours truly, still got their "merit" promotions.)
When I asked him about this, his answer was something like, "white people fail all the time, but when a minority fails, people remember longer. Because none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did, my higher ups nowadays scrutinize my minority promotions much less, meaning that the chances of those promotion proposals holding up are actually better.
How would this behavior be viewed? Is is racist, protective of minorities, or something else, such as "pragmatic?"
promotion discrimination
promotion discrimination
asked 1 hour ago
Tom Au
31928
asked 1 hour ago
Tom Au
31928
edited 7 mins ago
asked 1 hour ago
Tom Au
31928
asked 1 hour ago
Tom Au
31928
asked 1 hour ago
Tom Au
31928
31928
"How would this behavior be viewed? " - I view it as ridiculous. In which country did this behavior take place?
– Joe Strazzere
27 mins ago
@JoeStrazzere: Added U.S. to title to clarify. Thanks for your help.
– Tom Au
7 mins ago
add a comment |
"How would this behavior be viewed? " - I view it as ridiculous. In which country did this behavior take place?
– Joe Strazzere
27 mins ago
@JoeStrazzere: Added U.S. to title to clarify. Thanks for your help.
– Tom Au
7 mins ago
"How would this behavior be viewed? " - I view it as ridiculous. In which country did this behavior take place?
– Joe Strazzere
27 mins ago
"How would this behavior be viewed? " - I view it as ridiculous. In which country did this behavior take place?
– Joe Strazzere
27 mins ago
@JoeStrazzere: Added U.S. to title to clarify. Thanks for your help.
– Tom Au
7 mins ago
@JoeStrazzere: Added U.S. to title to clarify. Thanks for your help.
– Tom Au
7 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
[...] none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did [...]
This has absolutely no causal relationship.
It could be mere coincidence and it could be that you picked (sub)conciously better candidates (potentially even biased to pick more capable "minorities").
Also, the two datasets are skewed and can't be compared. (assumedly you have less "whites" than your colleague and he has no "minorities")
The behaviour of your superiors to scruitinize your minority promotions much less now is discrimination if they continue to scruitinize majority candidates the same as before (assuming both were scruitinized similarly back then).
[...]the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates[...]
How do you KNOW this was his motivation?
His answer doesn't quite reflect this (though it hints at a potential bias)
Another thing:
Minority is NOT equal non-white.
A distinction between whites and minorities is incorrect and should be instead between race if you need to make these kinds of distinctions.
Also keep in mind that "minority" depends on the country, therefore waries greatly.
answered 59 mins ago
DigitalBlade969
5,0901420
The boss told me that he would promote "anyone" he thought had an 80% chance or better of succeeding. But during this "crazy" period, he promoted people that he thought had less than 50-50 chances to succeed. More than half of these (white) promotions failed. His preference later was to promote "no one" and remain "understaffed."
– Tom Au
2 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125913%2fhow-would-the-following-workplace-behavior-be-perceived-in-the-u-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
[...] none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did [...]
This has absolutely no causal relationship.
It could be mere coincidence and it could be that you picked (sub)conciously better candidates (potentially even biased to pick more capable "minorities").
Also, the two datasets are skewed and can't be compared. (assumedly you have less "whites" than your colleague and he has no "minorities")
The behaviour of your superiors to scruitinize your minority promotions much less now is discrimination if they continue to scruitinize majority candidates the same as before (assuming both were scruitinized similarly back then).
[...]the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates[...]
How do you KNOW this was his motivation?
His answer doesn't quite reflect this (though it hints at a potential bias)
Another thing:
Minority is NOT equal non-white.
A distinction between whites and minorities is incorrect and should be instead between race if you need to make these kinds of distinctions.
Also keep in mind that "minority" depends on the country, therefore waries greatly.
answered 59 mins ago
DigitalBlade969
5,0901420
The boss told me that he would promote "anyone" he thought had an 80% chance or better of succeeding. But during this "crazy" period, he promoted people that he thought had less than 50-50 chances to succeed. More than half of these (white) promotions failed. His preference later was to promote "no one" and remain "understaffed."
– Tom Au
2 mins ago
add a comment |
[...] none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did [...]
This has absolutely no causal relationship.
It could be mere coincidence and it could be that you picked (sub)conciously better candidates (potentially even biased to pick more capable "minorities").
Also, the two datasets are skewed and can't be compared. (assumedly you have less "whites" than your colleague and he has no "minorities")
The behaviour of your superiors to scruitinize your minority promotions much less now is discrimination if they continue to scruitinize majority candidates the same as before (assuming both were scruitinized similarly back then).
[...]the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates[...]
How do you KNOW this was his motivation?
His answer doesn't quite reflect this (though it hints at a potential bias)
Another thing:
Minority is NOT equal non-white.
A distinction between whites and minorities is incorrect and should be instead between race if you need to make these kinds of distinctions.
Also keep in mind that "minority" depends on the country, therefore waries greatly.
answered 59 mins ago
DigitalBlade969
5,0901420
The boss told me that he would promote "anyone" he thought had an 80% chance or better of succeeding. But during this "crazy" period, he promoted people that he thought had less than 50-50 chances to succeed. More than half of these (white) promotions failed. His preference later was to promote "no one" and remain "understaffed."
– Tom Au
2 mins ago
add a comment |
[...] none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did [...]
This has absolutely no causal relationship.
It could be mere coincidence and it could be that you picked (sub)conciously better candidates (potentially even biased to pick more capable "minorities").
Also, the two datasets are skewed and can't be compared. (assumedly you have less "whites" than your colleague and he has no "minorities")
The behaviour of your superiors to scruitinize your minority promotions much less now is discrimination if they continue to scruitinize majority candidates the same as before (assuming both were scruitinized similarly back then).
[...]the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates[...]
How do you KNOW this was his motivation?
His answer doesn't quite reflect this (though it hints at a potential bias)
Another thing:
Minority is NOT equal non-white.
A distinction between whites and minorities is incorrect and should be instead between race if you need to make these kinds of distinctions.
Also keep in mind that "minority" depends on the country, therefore waries greatly.
answered 59 mins ago
DigitalBlade969
5,0901420
[...] none of my minority promotions of this period failed, and some of my white promotions did [...]
This has absolutely no causal relationship.
It could be mere coincidence and it could be that you picked (sub)conciously better candidates (potentially even biased to pick more capable "minorities").
Also, the two datasets are skewed and can't be compared. (assumedly you have less "whites" than your colleague and he has no "minorities")
The behaviour of your superiors to scruitinize your minority promotions much less now is discrimination if they continue to scruitinize majority candidates the same as before (assuming both were scruitinized similarly back then).
[...]the boss declined to "gamble" on minority candidates[...]
How do you KNOW this was his motivation?
His answer doesn't quite reflect this (though it hints at a potential bias)
Another thing:
Minority is NOT equal non-white.
A distinction between whites and minorities is incorrect and should be instead between race if you need to make these kinds of distinctions.
Also keep in mind that "minority" depends on the country, therefore waries greatly.
answered 59 mins ago
DigitalBlade969
5,0901420
edited 41 mins ago
answered 59 mins ago
DigitalBlade969
5,0901420
answered 59 mins ago
DigitalBlade969
5,0901420
answered 59 mins ago
DigitalBlade969
5,0901420
5,0901420
The boss told me that he would promote "anyone" he thought had an 80% chance or better of succeeding. But during this "crazy" period, he promoted people that he thought had less than 50-50 chances to succeed. More than half of these (white) promotions failed. His preference later was to promote "no one" and remain "understaffed."
– Tom Au
2 mins ago
add a comment |
The boss told me that he would promote "anyone" he thought had an 80% chance or better of succeeding. But during this "crazy" period, he promoted people that he thought had less than 50-50 chances to succeed. More than half of these (white) promotions failed. His preference later was to promote "no one" and remain "understaffed."
– Tom Au
2 mins ago
The boss told me that he would promote "anyone" he thought had an 80% chance or better of succeeding. But during this "crazy" period, he promoted people that he thought had less than 50-50 chances to succeed. More than half of these (white) promotions failed. His preference later was to promote "no one" and remain "understaffed."
– Tom Au
2 mins ago
The boss told me that he would promote "anyone" he thought had an 80% chance or better of succeeding. But during this "crazy" period, he promoted people that he thought had less than 50-50 chances to succeed. More than half of these (white) promotions failed. His preference later was to promote "no one" and remain "understaffed."
– Tom Au
2 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125913%2fhow-would-the-following-workplace-behavior-be-perceived-in-the-u-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
"How would this behavior be viewed? " - I view it as ridiculous. In which country did this behavior take place?
– Joe Strazzere
27 mins ago
@JoeStrazzere: Added U.S. to title to clarify. Thanks for your help.
– Tom Au
7 mins ago