ke you. If they DON'T- there's much less of a chance you'll be hired. It's the same as the people who interview you-:If you don't look like ANY of them (you're much older/young/different ethnic group/etc.) there's. much less of a chance to being hired. It's not even overt, conscious discrimination- we happen to prefer people like ourselves. (Being very attractive can make up to for this to some degree.).
What I've said is an OPINION, and if you can show some studies that disprove (or prove it), please let me know.
Keith "Once Again Hope I'm Wrong" Halperin…
ard for discussion.
Daniel isn't arguing against using social media, but rather reminding job seekers to be conscious of what they choose to share. An employer, perhaps not this employer in this case, but any employer, may take exception to you advertising your availability for new opportunities. An employer, perhaps not this one, but any employer, may take exception with you sharing their dirty laundry in public.
If nothing else, this case can serve as a reminder why one's LinkedIn profile and one's resume should not be the same, and why LinkedIn won't replace traditional resumes. In a resume, you want to tell the full story - the situation, strategy and results. In LinkedIn, you would be prudent to limit yourself to the results.…
ely specifically those from your gender ??
your definition or view of a leader sounds to me as some one who want's or is relishing his twilight year's ...looking back-upon laughing to him/her self ...about what could or would have been ...managed,
your definition of a leader also probably sounds like ...one who is looking for a scapegoat ,
there certainly are a few things or qualities that makes a leader standout , but i really don't see there should or would be great difference's between leading or managing a pack ,bunch of flok's ... a decision taken in the nick of the moment ...and holding on to the consequence's ...quite confusing ...
so it really zerod into or a microscopic view ...viz. looking for a scapegoat or acknowledging or owning upto
decision or choices ...one had taken consciously or due to circumstance's.
any how nice that the topic or issue came for a discussion.…
rom all sides. By working with our clients to set out clear production markers, we can give our candidates a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities and our client can quickly identify when our candidates have added value to their organization.
By conducting business this way it forces us to be conscious of our brand and who we associate it with. We take our time in selecting both our clients and candidates. The net result for us is an instant return on investment - our clients set up interviews sight unseen and typically we are at a 1 to 1 hire ratio. I am also happy to report ALL our clients and candidates are still happy with the decisions they made over a year ago.
I would say - If more Recruiters were vested to the long term care of their clients and candidates the question about what we compete on would become a very minor issue for the Top Recruiters and Agencies.…
ed I state it rather clearly.
"Obviously not on the basis on creed, colour, ethnicity, or any other irrelevant, illegal or immoral prejudice."
Nor do I advocate that we act as a lackey, and agree blindly to a clients questionable hiring criteria. Indeed I have many times told a client we won't proceed with a hire based on criteria that really does discriminate on improper grounds
So NO is the answer to your question. We will not be dropping "minorities" off our list as you call it. We stick to the placeable criteria without succumbing consciously or unconsciously to any prejudice that may exist in the wider community. In fact it may well encourage us to push harder…