Fixing the Rooney rule
sandfan
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 2,396
Joined: Apr 2017
#1
05-19-2020, 10:19 AM

I've always been a merit or qualifications driven manager.  I felt putting a lesser qualified person in a job because of any other reason did a disservice to my team.  That approach did not sit well with the HR people involved but anything that potentially negatively impacted my or my teams compensation was an issue.  

The idea of hiring because of a racial, gender, religious or any non merit objective was non productive in my view.  My goal was always to enhance the return to shareholders and employees.  Anything that might, might is the operative word, get in the way of that goal was unwanted.  Societal pressures and political correctness be damned.  I am positive my team and the corporation gained via my approach.

I don't say this to indicate I had no minority employees in my organization. I did. When a person demonstrated capabilty they were hired or promoted.  That, in my view, is exactly what makes capitalism work and optimizes the returns for all involved.
Reply
Rollers
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 8,267
Joined: Apr 2017
#2
05-19-2020, 10:26 AM

(05-19-2020, 10:19 AM)sandfan Wrote: I've always been a merit or qualifications driven manager.  I felt putting a lesser qualified person in a job because of any other reason did a disservice to my team.  That approach did not sit well with the HR people involved but anything that potentially negatively impacted my or my teams compensation was an issue.  

The idea of hiring because of a racial, gender, religious or any non merit objective was non productive in my view.  My goal was always to enhance the return to shareholders and employees.  Anything that might, might is the operative word, get in the way of that goal was unwanted.  Societal pressures and political correctness be damned.  I am positive my team and the corporation gained via my approach.

I don't say this to indicate I had no minority employees in my organization. I did. When a person demonstrated capabilty they were hired or promoted.  That, in my view, is exactly what makes capitalism work and optimizes the returns for all involved.

YOU NEED RE_EDUCATED IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Garrett Garlits
All Pro Veteran
****

Posts: 513
Joined: May 2017
#3
05-19-2020, 12:42 PM

There are simply too many older white men in charge of too many young black men in the NFL, period. Too many of those older white men tend to hire other older white men who are buddies of theirs rather than trust someone who has a different skin color and a different set of cultural values. No matter how well someone interviews, you don't know how competent they will be as head coaches or general managers until they actually start on the job, so that part's not strictly relevant. It's all about trusting someone who looks different from them, and so far most owners have refused to do so.

That being said, I don't like the idea of bumping up a team's draft position if they hire a minority as a coach or GM. If that part of it passes, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the shadier owners hire a minority as a one-and-done just to get a better chance at a player they really want in the draft. There has to be another type of incentive that can be used to convince those owners who would ordinarily hire a white coach, experienced or not, to take a chance on a minority coach instead, experienced or not.
Reply
sandfan
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 2,396
Joined: Apr 2017
#4
05-19-2020, 06:41 PM

(05-19-2020, 10:26 AM)Rollers Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:19 AM)sandfan Wrote: I've always been a merit or qualifications driven manager.  I felt putting a lesser qualified person in a job because of any other reason did a disservice to my team.  That approach did not sit well with the HR people involved but anything that potentially negatively impacted my or my teams compensation was an issue.  

The idea of hiring because of a racial, gender, religious or any non merit objective was non productive in my view.  My goal was always to enhance the return to shareholders and employees.  Anything that might, might is the operative word, get in the way of that goal was unwanted.  Societal pressures and political correctness be damned.  I am positive my team and the corporation gained via my approach.

I don't say this to indicate I had no minority employees in my organization. I did. When a person demonstrated capabilty they were hired or promoted.  That, in my view, is exactly what makes capitalism work and optimizes the returns for all involved.

YOU NEED RE_EDUCATED IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets use an example where I run a business producing a product in a capitalistic competitive environment.  My ability to market said product depends on many things such as quality, cost, etc.  My goal should always be to get the product made and to market at the best price/quality point and thereby optimize return.  Anything that negatively impacts that is not desired by me, my stakeholders or my customers.  

However, my competitors might just appreciate it.

I would achieve my objectives by acquiring and allocating resources.  Those resources might be equipment or human based.  If my goal is to succeed via optimization of said resources why would I employ a less efficient route?  Why would I purchase sub standard equipment or not hire the best person available to do any task?  To address what I think is your point, why should I be held to an artificial standard that might include gender, race, age, size, etc. when selecting any employee if said employee might lower the efficiency and quality of my operation? 

Please educate me.  I'm not yet too old to learn but have been retired since I turned 55.  Perhaps there's something I can pass on to my son.  His challenges lie ahead.
Reply
Rollers
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 8,267
Joined: Apr 2017
#5
05-19-2020, 08:20 PM

(05-19-2020, 06:41 PM)sandfan Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:26 AM)Rollers Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:19 AM)sandfan Wrote: I've always been a merit or qualifications driven manager.  I felt putting a lesser qualified person in a job because of any other reason did a disservice to my team.  That approach did not sit well with the HR people involved but anything that potentially negatively impacted my or my teams compensation was an issue.  

The idea of hiring because of a racial, gender, religious or any non merit objective was non productive in my view.  My goal was always to enhance the return to shareholders and employees.  Anything that might, might is the operative word, get in the way of that goal was unwanted.  Societal pressures and political correctness be damned.  I am positive my team and the corporation gained via my approach.

I don't say this to indicate I had no minority employees in my organization. I did. When a person demonstrated capabilty they were hired or promoted.  That, in my view, is exactly what makes capitalism work and optimizes the returns for all involved.

YOU NEED RE_EDUCATED IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets use an example where I run a business producing a product in a capitalistic competitive environment.  My ability to market said product depends on many things such as quality, cost, etc.  My goal should always be to get the product made and to market at the best price/quality point and thereby optimize return.  Anything that negatively impacts that is not desired by me, my stakeholders or my customers.  

However, my competitors might just appreciate it.

I would achieve my objectives by acquiring and allocating resources.  Those resources might be equipment or human based.  If my goal is to succeed via optimization of said resources why would I employ a less efficient route?  Why would I purchase sub standard equipment or not hire the best person available to do any task?  To address what I think is your point, why should I be held to an artificial standard that might include gender, race, age, size, etc. when selecting any employee if said employee might lower the efficiency and quality of my operation? 

Please educate me.  I'm not yet too old to learn but have been retired since I turned 55.  Perhaps there's something I can pass on to my son.  His challenges lie ahead.

I was being sarcastic.  I actually agree with you
Reply
Chucktownsteeler
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 19,166
Joined: Apr 2017
#6
05-20-2020, 03:23 AM

(05-19-2020, 10:19 AM)sandfan Wrote: I've always been a merit or qualifications driven manager.  I felt putting a lesser qualified person in a job because of any other reason did a disservice to my team.  That approach did not sit well with the HR people involved but anything that potentially negatively impacted my or my teams compensation was an issue.  

The idea of hiring because of a racial, gender, religious or any non merit objective was non productive in my view.  My goal was always to enhance the return to shareholders and employees.  Anything that might, might is the operative word, get in the way of that goal was unwanted.  Societal pressures and political correctness be damned.  I am positive my team and the corporation gained via my approach.

I don't say this to indicate I had no minority employees in my organization. I did. When a person demonstrated capabilty they were hired or promoted.  That, in my view, is exactly what makes capitalism work and optimizes the returns for all involved.

It would have been of the highest honor to be part of your team.


    Next - Minkah, #39!
  [Image: chucktown_sig_pic.jpg]
Reply
sandfan
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 2,396
Joined: Apr 2017
#7
05-20-2020, 10:15 AM

(05-19-2020, 08:20 PM)Rollers Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 06:41 PM)sandfan Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:26 AM)Rollers Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:19 AM)sandfan Wrote: I've always been a merit or qualifications driven manager.  I felt putting a lesser qualified person in a job because of any other reason did a disservice to my team.  That approach did not sit well with the HR people involved but anything that potentially negatively impacted my or my teams compensation was an issue.  

The idea of hiring because of a racial, gender, religious or any non merit objective was non productive in my view.  My goal was always to enhance the return to shareholders and employees.  Anything that might, might is the operative word, get in the way of that goal was unwanted.  Societal pressures and political correctness be damned.  I am positive my team and the corporation gained via my approach.

I don't say this to indicate I had no minority employees in my organization. I did. When a person demonstrated capabilty they were hired or promoted.  That, in my view, is exactly what makes capitalism work and optimizes the returns for all involved.

YOU NEED RE_EDUCATED IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets use an example where I run a business producing a product in a capitalistic competitive environment.  My ability to market said product depends on many things such as quality, cost, etc.  My goal should always be to get the product made and to market at the best price/quality point and thereby optimize return.  Anything that negatively impacts that is not desired by me, my stakeholders or my customers.  

However, my competitors might just appreciate it.

I would achieve my objectives by acquiring and allocating resources.  Those resources might be equipment or human based.  If my goal is to succeed via optimization of said resources why would I employ a less efficient route?  Why would I purchase sub standard equipment or not hire the best person available to do any task?  To address what I think is your point, why should I be held to an artificial standard that might include gender, race, age, size, etc. when selecting any employee if said employee might lower the efficiency and quality of my operation? 

Please educate me.  I'm not yet too old to learn but have been retired since I turned 55.  Perhaps there's something I can pass on to my son.  His challenges lie ahead.

I was being sarcastic.  I actually agree with you

Sorry for the epistle.  I did not pick up on the sarcasm.  I should have known better.
Reply
Rollers
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 8,267
Joined: Apr 2017
#8
05-20-2020, 08:14 PM

(05-20-2020, 10:15 AM)sandfan Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 08:20 PM)Rollers Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 06:41 PM)sandfan Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:26 AM)Rollers Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:19 AM)sandfan Wrote: I've always been a merit or qualifications driven manager.  I felt putting a lesser qualified person in a job because of any other reason did a disservice to my team.  That approach did not sit well with the HR people involved but anything that potentially negatively impacted my or my teams compensation was an issue.  

The idea of hiring because of a racial, gender, religious or any non merit objective was non productive in my view.  My goal was always to enhance the return to shareholders and employees.  Anything that might, might is the operative word, get in the way of that goal was unwanted.  Societal pressures and political correctness be damned.  I am positive my team and the corporation gained via my approach.

I don't say this to indicate I had no minority employees in my organization. I did. When a person demonstrated capabilty they were hired or promoted.  That, in my view, is exactly what makes capitalism work and optimizes the returns for all involved.

YOU NEED RE_EDUCATED IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets use an example where I run a business producing a product in a capitalistic competitive environment.  My ability to market said product depends on many things such as quality, cost, etc.  My goal should always be to get the product made and to market at the best price/quality point and thereby optimize return.  Anything that negatively impacts that is not desired by me, my stakeholders or my customers.  

However, my competitors might just appreciate it.

I would achieve my objectives by acquiring and allocating resources.  Those resources might be equipment or human based.  If my goal is to succeed via optimization of said resources why would I employ a less efficient route?  Why would I purchase sub standard equipment or not hire the best person available to do any task?  To address what I think is your point, why should I be held to an artificial standard that might include gender, race, age, size, etc. when selecting any employee if said employee might lower the efficiency and quality of my operation? 

Please educate me.  I'm not yet too old to learn but have been retired since I turned 55.  Perhaps there's something I can pass on to my son.  His challenges lie ahead.

I was being sarcastic.  I actually agree with you

Sorry for the epistle.  I did not pick up on the sarcasm.  I should have known better.
It's ok.  I agree with what you posted.
Reply
dbsfgyd1
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 15,415
Joined: Apr 2017
#9
05-22-2020, 02:04 AM

(05-19-2020, 12:42 PM)Garrett Garlits Wrote: There are simply too many older white men in charge of too many young black men in the NFL, period. Too many of those older white men tend to hire other older white men who are buddies of theirs rather than trust someone who has a different skin color and a different set of cultural values. No matter how well someone interviews, you don't know how competent they will be as head coaches or general managers until they actually start on the job, so that part's not strictly relevant. It's all about trusting someone who looks different from them, and so far most owners have refused to do so.

That being said, I don't like the idea of bumping up a team's draft position if they hire a minority as a coach or GM. If that part of it passes, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the shadier owners hire a minority as a one-and-done just to get a better chance at a player they really want in the draft. There has to be another type of incentive that can be used to convince those owners who would ordinarily hire a white coach, experienced or not, to take a chance on a minority coach instead, experienced or not.

Garrison, I’m about as color blind as you can be. While I do agree that considering with the amount of non white players in the NFL, it is odd that more are more in senior coaching positions, I object to the flat statement you made that the reason that the NFL is a good old boys network. 

As for the NFL, I think you need to consider all aspects of a viable candidate before offering a senior management appointment of a billion dollar enterprise. This would include  employment history, management education  and or experience, how one handles their finances, will their family situation interfere with ones ability to do the job, skeletons in the closet, drug history, the ability to communicate clearly not only with the players, but acceptably with the media, stock holders, and the public.

Now, drill down and think if you had a billion dollar business and we’re about to appoint a senior management position, what would your minimum qualifications be. Now, honestly ask yourself, how many players regardless of race would fit that profile? My guess is it’s a very short list.
Reply
Rollers
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 8,267
Joined: Apr 2017
#10
05-22-2020, 09:12 PM

(05-22-2020, 02:04 AM)dbsfgyd1 Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 12:42 PM)Garrett Garlits Wrote: There are simply too many older white men in charge of too many young black men in the NFL, period. Too many of those older white men tend to hire other older white men who are buddies of theirs rather than trust someone who has a different skin color and a different set of cultural values. No matter how well someone interviews, you don't know how competent they will be as head coaches or general managers until they actually start on the job, so that part's not strictly relevant. It's all about trusting someone who looks different from them, and so far most owners have refused to do so.

That being said, I don't like the idea of bumping up a team's draft position if they hire a minority as a coach or GM. If that part of it passes, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the shadier owners hire a minority as a one-and-done just to get a better chance at a player they really want in the draft. There has to be another type of incentive that can be used to convince those owners who would ordinarily hire a white coach, experienced or not, to take a chance on a minority coach instead, experienced or not.

Garrison, I’m about as color blind as you can be. While I do agree that considering with the amount of non white players in the NFL, it is odd that more are more in senior coaching positions, I object to the flat statement you made that the reason that the NFL is a good old boys network. 

As for the NFL, I think you need to consider all aspects of a viable candidate before offering a senior management appointment of a billion dollar enterprise. This would include  employment history, management education  and or experience, how one handles their finances, will their family situation interfere with ones ability to do the job, skeletons in the closet, drug history, the ability to communicate clearly not only with the players, but acceptably with the media, stock holders, and the public.

Now, drill down and think if you had a billion dollar business and we’re about to appoint a senior management position, what would your minimum qualifications be. Now, honestly ask yourself, how many players regardless of race would fit that profile? My guess is it’s a very short list.
It would be interesting to know how many players, white or black, are serving in a senior management position in the NFL.  It would also be nice to know what qualifications that owners look for in a senior management person on an NFL team.  I agree with you that very few players white or black would qualify for those positions.  Anyway I'd be interested to know what the numbers were on the folks occupying senior management positions in the NFL
Reply
dbsfgyd1
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 15,415
Joined: Apr 2017
#11
05-22-2020, 11:17 PM

(05-22-2020, 09:12 PM)Rollers Wrote:
(05-22-2020, 02:04 AM)dbsfgyd1 Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 12:42 PM)Garrett Garlits Wrote: There are simply too many older white men in charge of too many young black men in the NFL, period. Too many of those older white men tend to hire other older white men who are buddies of theirs rather than trust someone who has a different skin color and a different set of cultural values. No matter how well someone interviews, you don't know how competent they will be as head coaches or general managers until they actually start on the job, so that part's not strictly relevant. It's all about trusting someone who looks different from them, and so far most owners have refused to do so.

That being said, I don't like the idea of bumping up a team's draft position if they hire a minority as a coach or GM. If that part of it passes, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the shadier owners hire a minority as a one-and-done just to get a better chance at a player they really want in the draft. There has to be another type of incentive that can be used to convince those owners who would ordinarily hire a white coach, experienced or not, to take a chance on a minority coach instead, experienced or not.

Garrison, I’m about as color blind as you can be. While I do agree that considering with the amount of non white players in the NFL, it is odd that more are more in senior coaching positions, I object to the flat statement you made that the reason that the NFL is a good old boys network. 

As for the NFL, I think you need to consider all aspects of a viable candidate before offering a senior management appointment of a billion dollar enterprise. This would include  employment history, management education  and or experience, how one handles their finances, will their family situation interfere with ones ability to do the job, skeletons in the closet, drug history, the ability to communicate clearly not only with the players, but acceptably with the media, stock holders, and the public.

Now, drill down and think if you had a billion dollar business and we’re about to appoint a senior management position, what would your minimum qualifications be. Now, honestly ask yourself, how many players regardless of race would fit that profile? My guess is it’s a very short list.
It would be interesting to know how many players, white or black, are serving in a senior management position in the NFL.  It would also be nice to know what qualifications that owners look for in a senior management person on an NFL team.  I agree with you that very few players white or black would qualify for those positions.  Anyway I'd be interested to know what the numbers were on the folks occupying senior management positions in the NFL

I would be very interested myself. I think you have to keep in mind, a good player does not mean they would be good coach. To survive in the NFL as a player, in general, you have to have a serious case of the nasties. That trait does not translate well to managerial positions or positions of authority. Myers-Briggs testing would probably weed out a fair percentage as sociopaths. 

Secondly, these are not exactly choirboys out there on the field. I was a young and dumb touring musician back the 70’s. I would have been a lot dummer with 10 million in the bank and really cause a lot damage. I was reprehensible enough as it was as a starving musician. I can only imaging what goes on in the life of an NFL player.
I
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)