22 August 2005

irked

I read this when it came out, it was linked in many, many places.

The guy is right. A lot of businesses are only comfortable hiring women. They'll hire men if they have to, but that's a last resort. They don't want men because men can be a disruptive influence in the workplace. If you ask a man to commit insurance fraud, you're going to have to bribe him. Women will do it just to be seen as a team player.

What women consider to be a team player usually isn't the same as how men view it. To most men I know, a team player is one who works for the best interests of the team. To most women I know, a team player is a sycophant who does what they're asked without question or hesitation, and discourages suggestions. In short, a puppy, always happy to see the rest of it's group, always thinking that whatever is happening is the most wonderful thing ever, never openly questioning any decision or command, more intent on fitting in than on getting anything done.

The groupthink that dominates in an office full of women may give the impression of productivity, but if you bother staffing with professionals, they don't have to like each other to get their work done. Women would rather be popular than professional, men are used to being unpopular and want a performance-based raise.

It hurts performance, it hurts productivity, it hurts the bottom line, but managers love obedient complacent employees. The BBC doesn't have to worry about it's bottom line, because it's anti-american propaganda is funded through taxation. A lot of businesses are running into trouble.

Your mileage may vary, but that's been my experience and I felt like ranting a bit.

Goe, tired of being told that thinking for himself means that he's unqualified.

2 comments:

Rachmeg said...

I’m trying to think of the outrage that would be spewed, if there were some broads here to comment…

I’ll take the rhetorical generalizations of men and women in the office as just a cynical rant. They are pretty shallow, and for a while, I wasn’t sure if you were just writing a sexist parody to the pro-Communist arguments that always get your bile up.

While there could be some racist/sexist arguments made based on a generalization for people to hire like-minded individuals (women hiring women or blacks hiring blacks) , any company that strays too far form hiring the most competent people, or running their business efficiently will soon be trounced out of a fair market.

Now, I would argue that the modern business model, especially in large companies, favors women in the middle management positions that separate career executives, from career cubites. In these positions woman (at least those who possess stereotypical motherly personalities) should thrive.
These women are better-trained then men at soliciting compromise, and giving criticism in a non-threatening way.
Who could hate someone that reminds you of your own mother or an older sister? In a workers market, fear is likely to drive employees away. It is a huge advantage for a company to have lower management that can pull on workers emotions to increase performance, yet also be believable when she delivers the the news that she is sorry, but raises will be less than expected again this year…

While this bias in lower management should create a female biased pool of qualified candidates for promotion. Don’t kid yourself, that the women are just sheep. Bitch bosses can be just as smart, shrewd, deceptive, and self centered as their male counterparts.

The role for the determined, unstoppable, and self-reliant male still exists in small business. Excluding “at-home” work, man’s men still thrive in the high-risk world of running small companies.

Assuming we don’t run out of manly men.

Rach- don’tdrinkthewater

Goemagog said...

i think it's got more to do with so many companies assuming that every position is customer service or sales, so they try to pick people who will do well in one of those tasks. for most positions, it'll be customer service with sales being a small group set apart. what the job actually entails is sidelined in favor of amiability.

you may remember back on the nest, someone asked how to pick between equally qualified candidates for a position that they were doing the hiring for. most of the nesters agreed that made the interviewer more comfortable should get the job. pick ten people at random walking down the street, five male and five female, the women will probably give you the impression of being more personable. first impressions make a big difference, and we're a strong cultural bias that men are impersonal and ill suited to customer service roles.

I once got a lecture on 'diversity' from a woman who only hired white women between the ages of 30 and 45. she wasn't deliberately discriminating but her self-written hiring criteria required a "commitment to diversity" in new employees, but not actual diversity in new employees. lip service was more important than substance, again back at customer service/sales.

Goe, knows that most local jobs created in the past two years are minimum wage call center positions.