Comments by "E B" (@eb2505) on "‘Women will be represented’: Allegra Spender warns Liberals" video.
-
23
-
6
-
3
-
Don't worry, businesses worth their salt will find ways round this - there is a grey area in human resources which they will work in - those that don't do this will likely not be places you'd want to work at.
What I see as being one approach by businesses who feel compelled to adopt this nonsense but are otherwise good companies to work for, is that they will follow the principles/laws laid down by government, and promote women on the basis of their sex , instead of their achievements. They'll closely monitor their performance ( as is their right and duty to the company, and which they do anyway already for all employees), and if they fail because they have been promoted above their level of competence, they'll be managed out on the basis of their performance. That means only the good, deserving women will remain in the positions they deserve on the basis of their own merits.
The sad thing will be that the guys that should have gotten promoted on the basis of superior performance will miss out, but in the end that will hurt the company because they will leave for other employers, maybe even start their own companies. The companies that don't operate fairly will develop a reputation for that and avoided by the more competent men, which will hurt the company as they won't have an influx of competent staff and will be stacked with mediocre staff which will hurt their bottom line, and the share holders will hold them to account.
Just consider the AMP debacle several years back. Anyone, man or woman who wants the spotlight but doesn't have the ability to perform, will become a very visible failure within, and perhaps external to, the company - that should cause some degree of self-regulation in aspiring professionals and blue collar workers.
The biggest problem will be in government and semi-government.
2
-
Don't worry, businesses worth their salt will find ways round this - there is a grey area in human resources which they will work in - those that don't do this will likely not be places you'd want to work at.
What I see as being one approach by businesses who feel compelled to adopt this nonsense but are otherwise good companies to work for, is that they will follow the principles/laws laid down by government, and promote women on the basis of their sex , instead of their achievements. They'll closely monitor their performance ( as is their right and duty to the company, and which they do anyway already for all employees), and if they fail because they have been promoted above their level of competence, they'll be managed out on the basis of their performance. That means only the good, deserving women will remain in the positions they deserve on the basis of their own merits.
The sad thing will be that the guys that should have gotten promoted on the basis of superior performance will miss out, but in the end that will hurt the company because they will leave for other employers, maybe even start their own companies. The companies that don't operate fairly will develop a reputation for that and avoided by the more competent men, which will hurt the company as they won't have an influx of competent staff and will be stacked with mediocre staff which will hurt their bottom line, and the share holders will hold them to account.
Just consider the AMP debacle several years back. Anyone, man or woman who wants the spotlight but doesn't have the ability to perform, will become a very visible failure within, and perhaps external to, the company - that should cause some degree of self-regulation in aspiring professionals and blue collar workers.
This also presents a dilema for high performing women (and men). Will they be imposed upon to promote underperforming team members on the basis of their sex? Logic would suggest they will. This inevitably will drag down their performance and imperil their careers. How accepting will they be of this?
Having spent much time in team environments, I think I can say with confidence this will induce much friction amongst team members with a consequent drop in productivity as high performing team members will resent the lower performing ones, and the managers will shoulder the burden. High performing staff generally also want high performing managers, so expect this to become a hotly contested issue when a person promoted on the basis of sex does not meet the expectations of the high performing staff they manage.
It seems to me that Spender has not thought this through in much detail. There will be unintended consequences for private industry, the public service and high performing teams run by whatever sex.
The biggest problem will be in government and semi-government where mediocrity will become entrenched. They too will face the same issues as private companies, but because they are not held to account in the same fashion will just become strong holds for those who can't make in on their own in private industry, and our government services will deteriorate. More of a problem for those departments that have sought hard to garner expertise from private industry (such as the ATO) but will now see the undoing of their hard labour.
Spender will then just go down as an unfortunate aberration in political history having instituted ruinous polices that undermined the effectiveness and efficiency of private industry and the public service. She likely won't be remembered kindly for her time in office by members of both sexes - the men whose careers she helped ruin, and the women who genuinely wanted to achieve on their own merits and to be recognised as having done so and who experienced the sabotaging of their own careers through the imposition of artificial constraints that dragged down their team's performance and consequently their own.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1