The Chief wrote: greenroom31 wrote:
The Chief wrote:I hope she was chosen because she was the best candidate and not because of her gender.
With female referees and now coaches popping up suddenly in the last couple of years under Adam Silver's watch, I'm just curious about motives behind the hires. The goal is to win championships with the most talented people, male or female. If these are virtue signaling, "gender diversity" hires it degrades the integrity of the league.
I wonder why people don't ask this about every male hire?
Context matters. The reality is that professional business is still majority male. With the recent movement to install women in leadership roles simply because they're women, it's a question that's going to be raised. High level leadership and management roles are highly sought the world over and careers/salaries are on the line. If roles are filled solely based on gender and not on merit, it's a problem.
Sure. But failing to hire women can be a failure to hire on merit.
Anytime the best candidate isn't hired, this would apply, right?
Besides which, thinking of it as 'the best person' is simplistic in my opinion.
When I'm hiring, I'm trying to bolster my team. I might bring in people with particular skills my team is lacking, industry contacts, or diversity of background so I can get different perspectives and solutions offered.
The last thing I want are 6 of the 'best' candidates who are all similar in background, experience and skillset.