Diversity

What next?

79D51C3D-04F6-4171-9104-0FDBD84CBFDF.jpeg

The Queensland Government has decided to remove ‘gender’ from licenses going forward after ‘pressure’ from the LGBTI community.  In what can only be described as a politically correct own goal by the Dept of Transport & Main Roads, surely the best way to pander to all of those minorities would have been to offer the choice of the 63 genders that are available. Imagine the amount of tax dollars we can waste on new sensitivity training for police to make sure that the can ‘protect and serve’ feelings. Or maybe that is the aim to create more state jobs?

What is a poor highway patrol officer (usually operating alone) who pulls over a driver over for speeding on the highway to do? What if he thinks the driver is over the limit when questioning him/her/zie? The bearded driver who looks male can pull out the genderless card and accuse the officer of using the wrong pronoun and request that an LGBT police officer administer any breath test procedure. In fact the driver might just claim an injustice has been served.

So will highway patrols be forced to carry a male, female and LGBT officer on pursuits with a fourth ‘independent observer’ from the Australian Human Rights Commission to ensure that feelings of drivers aren’t hurt?

We keep on being told diversity is our strength. Indeed it would be true were it not for repeated state indoctrination. We only need to look at how celebrating diversity works in places like California where one can be jailed for simply using the wrong pronoun. Welcome to the slippery slope.

‘Hiring outside the box’ – why ‘diversity of thought’ trumps ‘diversity’

4DA8B187-DA66-4537-B065-361BB3CE9457

How many times have I heard over my career senior management talk incessantly about the need for new blood yet when it comes to doing anything about it with regards to new hires 99.9% of the time the safe cookie cutter is favoured over the left field choice. It is ever more so the truth in the post GFC world. Managers seem afraid to take calculated risks because the left-field candidate may jeopardize their own positions if he/she fails. Perhaps we really should judge businesses and their long term ability to succeed by the willingness to hire outside the box.

As an example managers in finance often fall foul of hiring exclusively within the industry. The level of inferiority complex can be so overwhelming that they fawn at the idea a Goldman Sachs employee will work for them for some ridiculous sum. Invariably they forget that Goldman hires duds too and usually those that get cast off are in that bucket. If you are properly good, there is no incentive to leave Goldman as the salaries, opportunities and product capabilities are too wonderful vs peers.

Yet many financial firms set upon trying to change the firm into a wannabe Goldman Sachs. They forget that their clients can already deal with Goldman directly should they feel the urge. Why on earth would they choose to deal with a wannabe copy? Surely each firm has a unique selling property that is of value to clients. Why not invest and promote that rather than overlook the talent within. Who honestly values flattery? Besides, there are so many cautionary tales with hiring ex-bulge bracket employees who are so used to being spoon fed every possible product line that they struggle immensely when they are required to actually put elbow grease into the job. It is uncanny.

Some firms occasionally hire from outside the industry with huge success. Instead of financial analysts pontificating about a stock, someone who has worked within the industry has a far better feel for cycles, internal decision processes and strategy that formulates under different points in the cycle. Clients glean that value. They couldn’t care less about the stock target or valuation metrics because that ultimately is the investor’s job. Besides the history of brokers behind the curve is etched in stone. Unique context and perspective trumps commoditization every time.

Some financial (and other) professionals have such checkered histories that one wonders how on earth they get rehired. If companies viewed their hiring decisions as akin to selecting a heart surgeon for a life threatening operation, many of these people would never make the cut (no pun intended) given the body count from previous poor execution. Yet many firms continue to put quacks in their ‘surgeries’ with expected disastrous results. Generally hiring managers run interference on these bad choices to cover their own mistakes.

Many HR surveys (including Harvard) show that bad hires end up costing way more than the salary when the cost of onboarding is included. Not only do companies potentially have to foot the cost of a headhunter (25-30% of salary is a standard fee) , what follows is poorer output, the potential for incumbent employees to become disgruntled at the new hire’s lack of ability and most worryingly an increase in dissatisfied customers. If they land a toxic employee that can damage team productivity to such an extent the best performers will seek challenges elsewhere.

So in a world that is getting harder and harder to succeed in, on what basis does conventional thinking bring anything to the table but more of the same? What does hiring a competitor do other than bring similar tactics? In fact, the more telling question is if they were knocking the lights out their success would permeate within their current employer. Unseating happy employees requires dynamite way over and above what they can probably afford.

What hirers often forget is the extent to which internal human capital plays a part. How awful does one’s human capital creation have to be to consider jumping ship regularly? So the idea of hiring a team or individual that is desperate to flee their current employer before their failures eventually catch up with them and get them fired or demoted, has the hiring management really checked and confirmed their performances at their old shop? If they have achieved so little at the old company what on earth makes hiring managers think they can miraculously turn around at the new company? It is a serious question and I have seen it rife across a raft of industries not just finance.

That is where the left field choice comes into its own when hiring. A person genuinely looking for career change may well be doing it because they’ve tired of several decades of the same industry. They’ll likely come full of fresh ideas, out of the box solutions and lessons from a completely different background with the passion of a new graduate. For as different as many industries may seem from the outside, the connectivity with great customer experiences is ubiquitous.

Usually it is the small stuff that actually matters, not 50 page PowerPoints with data points which actually completely miss what really matters. It is almost ironic to think employees have to prove their worth by making simple things complicated.

Many companies fail to adapt because the stupid questions don’t get asked by the incumbent staff for fear of ridicule. Yet someone eager to learn may ask the most basic of questions and ask “does it work?” One company I consult had a new boss join from HQ and he questioned why staff had meetings on such trivial matters? One staff member said “we’ve been doing it this way for 15 years!” When the boss said “does it work?” all replied ‘not really“. Yet they offered little in the way of proposals to change what was broken.

In a sense I see many businesses that operate in status quo mode where change if ever happens on a trivial or traumatic basis not through consistent due diligence and proactive leadership.

Think of it like asking an elderly person “if you had one more day to live what would you do?” “Well I’d play golf, take my wife to an expensive dinner and drive a Ferrari” If you asked him “why don’t you do it now?” the response would likely be “well I’m not dead yet!”

Look at the successful businesses around the world today and invariably the corporate culture is likely to be open and flexible. Bosses are prepared to hire people more qualified than them because they want to learn. Show me a company where inferior staff are hired to protect a manager and I’ll show you a dud business.

I was fortunate enough to have lunch with an utterly inspirational CEO in the automotive field in Japan this week who has rebuilt a brand from nothing to a point where his dealers are almost biting his hand off for extra product! Why does this matter? Well pretty much all of his competitors have dealers who aren’t part of the  family! His competitors seem to treat dealers as outsiders where there is no relationship built on foundations of mutual trust. How can long term targets have any mutual meaning if the OEM forces its dealers to positions which do not take into account individual conditions. Here is a target – if you don’t meet it then we’ll keep shipping you more cars even if your business suffers!

Which then goes back to the most important ingredient in a tech savvy smartphone world. Analog relationships. Look at the latest recruitment sites which ask candidates to fill in fields where a computer will sift through algorithms to screen. These systems remove the most important skill in selecting good candidates – gut feel. A good recruiter can understand a client’s needs far better than a computer. Besides if a computer is searching for terms fixated on what you’ve done and not what you want to do it will screen you out every time. What a wasted opportunity!

Human nature is uncanny. Risk taking is inevitable but instead of most people becoming victims of change only a mere few will end up being agents of it and there will be no second guessing who dares wins! So instead of screening for the textbook definition of identity based diversity how about focus on diversity of thought!

Hypocrisy of the Mayor of Sydney

9BFAF40E-2081-4110-A923-4F8004D9E273.png

It shouldn’t surprise but in the self-serving interests of the Marxist Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore has vowed to make venues in Sydney’s prominent places free for 100 days for any gay weddings if SSM is legalized. Yes, if marriage equality is approved, the first thing Moore intends to do is promote “inequality”. I sincerely hope that gay couples reject her offer should the legislation pass because it would only serve to prove the height of double standards. Gaining equality should not mean getting an advantage. Love is love. Money is money. Loony progressive logic.

Let’s hope the Feds don’t take the same biases in investigations

CF3369CC-B6BB-49BC-AA1E-D30D6F053C46.jpeg

Here we go again. The slippery slope of ‘diversity’ which does everything else other than promote inclusivity because by its very nature it is all about singling out exclusivity. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) brazenly states in its recruitment campaign that they want to get to 50/50 women. Of course there is no issue with hiring women. No ifs or buts. If you are a male, your chances of joking the AFP will be diminished no matter how qualified you might be. What has gender got to do with work performance, let alone the desire to ‘protect and serve’? In most police forces around the world the split is 70/30 men/women. Maybe it is just reflective of individual choices in careers rather than women being selectively discouraged?

The AFP wrote in response to their post,

There’s been a lot of commentary on the fact that we’re targeting women with this recruitment. We’d like to clarify a few things.

In the AFP, women currently comprise 22% of sworn police and 13.5% of protective security officers. Our goal is to increase this proportion to 35% in both streams by 2021.

Today’s ‘special measure’ recruitment action is designed to supplement our current recruitment process – we already have a pool of suitable male and female candidates who applied recently.

This action we’re taking will provide us with additional female candidates. It’s not going to displace existing recruitment pools and it will require applicants to meet all the existing gateways.

Under Section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act, the special measures we’re taking to achieve substantive equality between men and women in this organisation are legal.”

This lame excuse is yet another spineless rolling over to pander to political correctness. If. 20 candidates apply for 10 positions and there are 10 men and 10 women, wouldn’t it be best to hire 10 women if they were better qualified for ability than the 10 men? Or vice versa? So hire 5 extremely qualified women and 5 inept males just to keep a balance?

Last month CM spoke of the same garbage ‘diversity’ argument in the army.

Recruiters at the ADF have been told they must hire women or face relocation if they don’t comply. The recruiters say there are no jobs available for men in the in the infantry as a rifleman or artilleryman. But these positions are marked as ‘recruit immediately’ if a female applies. If a 50kg woman is in the artillery a 43.2kg M-107 shell is over 80% of her weight. An 80kg man would be lifting the same shells at around half of his weight. This is basic physics.

The West Australian newspaper reported one recruiter who said, “This is political correctness gone mad. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman – I just want to get the best person for the job.”

Yet the political correctness is promoted from the top. Defence chief, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, stressed the importance of diversity for the ADF. “A diverse workforce is all about capability. The greater our diversity, the greater the range of ideas and insights to challenge the accepted norm, assess the risks, see them from a different perspective, and develop creative solutions.”

So once again we are told to view this nonsense as completely acceptable. That the AFP puts gender above ability. Ability and passion are all that matters. Shame on the AFP for having a blonde white woman instead of one from a coloured background for maximum virtue signaling mileage. For all of the AFP’s expertise in forensic science it is an embarrassment to see them use a most flawed identikit for recruitment.

So what is next after the 50/50 target is hit? After all the AFP seeks to match society. Surely what follows is balance in sexual orientation, faith, race and other irrelevant aspects which should be irrelevant to job performance – all in the name of diversity – what a joke. Let men and women chose the AFP of their own volition and take the best of the crop.

Welcome to the nanny state.

Channeling Chewbacca, the feminist…

Here is a video of Justin Trudeau talking complete drivel about how he’s proud to be a feminist and how we bloody minded males must stop being men. What is the perpetual bleating about identity that seems to fill his days. Then again he feels completely at home muzzling his own citizens (e.g. Bill M-103). What a shame Trudeau wasn’t able to give speaking lessons to POTUS before he gave his UN speech. Trump didn’t have to growl like Chewie. All he needed was Chewbacca socks so he could look gruff while he apologized profusely for every hurt feeling even if he had nothing to do with it.

Trudeau highlights what is wrong with world leaders today. Appearing to do things is enough. Sometimes hard measures are required. Leadership, even if decisions are unpalatable, is about doing. In a crisis could would you want to bet on him? He is a vote for virtue signaling. Ewok socks much more appropriate for the Canadian PM

76E6187C-48D6-4597-8F15-E8A51E8CCADB

What do we really want from an army?

IMG_0811.JPG

It is a serious question. What do we really want from our armed forces? We pay billions in taxes to hopefully arm them to the teeth with the best technology, skills, training and capabilities to win wars should we ever find ourselves in one. Victory is the only choice in war. The ideal scenario is to make the enemy fear you enough such as you won’t end up in battle. However the military should never be a place that is used to test social experiments.

Then why the push for making the military or any other emergency service anything other than the best? Gender balance and diversity are irrelevant. News has resurfaced that the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are being set gender recruitment targets. It is insanity. Merit should be the only criteria. If 100% of them happen to be women based on merit then so be it but setting gender targets as a slated goal is obtuse. If more women wish to join the armed forces through desire, hunger and passion than men then that is expressing a clear will.

Eligibility standards are being lowered to help hit diversity targets. You can see the standards difference in these two charts posted by the ADF.

IMG_0812IMG_0813

Recruiters at the ADF have been told they must hire women or face relocation if they don’t comply. The recruiters say there are no jobs available for men in the in the infantry as a rifleman or artilleryman. But these positions are marked as ‘recruit immediately’ if a female applies. If a 50kg woman is in the artillery a 43.2kg M-107 shell is over 80% of her weight. An 80kg man would be lifting the same shells at around half of his weight. This is basic physics.

The West Australian newspaper reported one recruiter who said, “This is political correctness gone mad. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman – I just want to get the best person for the job.”

Yet the political correctness is promoted from the top. Defence chief, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, stressed the importance of diversity for the ADF. “A diverse workforce is all about capability. The greater our diversity, the greater the range of ideas and insights to challenge the accepted norm, assess the risks, see them from a different perspective, and develop creative solutions.”

Let us not confuse diversity with skills. In WW2, the US Army employed Native American Indians to work in intelligence. The idea that their native tongue was next to impossible to decode if transmissions were intercepted by the enemy. The US military wasn’t making a diversity play to even out race, gender or religion. It was employing a clear tactical advantage to help win a war. Such intelligence is vital in planning battles and tactics. The enemy wants to know our plans in advance such they can ambush or counter. The Navaho language meant the Japanese intelligence forces were completely flummoxed and suffered huge losses as a result. The merit was the rarity of the Navaho language, a skill no one else had. Think of how hard the British worked at breaking the codes of the German Enigma machines at Bletchley Park. Skill is is the defining factor.

It gets more ridiculous. One senior retired military contact has said that those who are recruited are now allowed to raise a red card in protest if a drill-sergeant is offending their sensitivities. Seriously? Surely an army is as strong as its weakest link and if leaders can’t drill discipline into his or her troops what hope have they in battle? Perhaps they can just disobey orders and avoid a court martial because they deployed a red card on the battlefield. Surely no one joins the army expecting it to be a life of late morning lie-ins, frequent recreation and late nights at the bar.

The military should never be a social experiment. It is off limits. This is not to say women should not have a chance to join it. In fact the desire to serve one’s country is indeed an excellent trait to have but putting in place a system that excludes Victor, a fitness freak with a black belt in martial arts from joining the infantry, for Victoria, a lady with a BMI of 30 makes no sense. If Victoria is the black-belted gym junkie and Victor is a slob then of course it makes sense to recruit her.

At the end of the day with bullets whizzing around and artillery shells exploding around them it is not hard to envisage that every soldier looks to the person to the left or right of them wondering only about their capability to do the job, not celebrating the army’s pro-diversity drive. Anything that potentially damages morale should be avoided at all costs. Dropping standards for both genders is fraught with long term risks and turning the ADF into an organization that puts more emphasis on feeling warm and cuddly versus a gung-ho group of steely-eyed effective combat troops lowers our capability to defend.

We must move on from this politically correct nonsense because in the end it will literally kill us. Then again we are getting our submarines built in Australia, not because they will be better built but because our defence capability took a back seat to buying votes. Don’t think our enemies aren’t always keeping on top of our (growing lack of ) capabilities.

Egyptian TV host defends the West’s attitudes toward Islamic terror

IMG_0716.JPG

Not many will have seen this video because the mainstream media is loathe to publish anything remotely balanced these days. Egyptian TV host Youssef Al-Husseini launched a scathing attack on Islamic terrorism post the Finsbury Park mosque attack and said “The terror attack that unfortunately took place [in London] was a vehicular attack. This time, it was near a mosque, if you follow the news. How can anyone decide to carry out a terror attack near a place of worship – near a mosque, a church, or any temple where God is worshipped? In all the previous vehicular attacks, at least in 2016 and 2017, the “heroes” were, unfortunately, Muslims. And then people wonder why they hate us. Why do they hate us?! If they didn’t, there would be something mentally wrong with them. [We] use weapons all the time, slaughter people all the time, flay people all the time, burn people alive all the time, run people over all the time, and plant explosive devices and car bombs all the time. Why do you still expect them to love you?”

As written on the day of the London mosque attack, it was an unquestionably despicable act. This tit-for-tat terrorism serves no purpose other than to trigger further escalation on both sides. No sooner had a white terrorist run down a group of worshippers outside a mosque than another depraved individual tried to detonate a suicide vest in Brussels’ Central Station supposedly yelling “Allahu Akbar“. The sad aspect of terrorism in the West today is that it is happening on such a regular basis that many people are becoming numbed to it.

However the mosque attack was the such a bad turning point. The UK government is ill equipped to deal with it now. Should they mobilize the full compliment of 80,000 British Army soldiers and 27,000 reservists to guard the 2,000-odd mosques in the UK? Is putting barricades on footpaths a real solution? Do Brits want to see tanks parked outside Westminster or Trafalgar Square? Should x-ray machines be installed at every train or bus station? Is that a sustainable solution to the problem giving birth to vigilantes? People want action, not politically correct hand-wringing. They are sick of being told to suck it up and embrace ‘stronger together’ and ‘diversity is our strength’ or ‘terrorism is a fact of any big city’ style pandering. The majority of people are tolerant but there is a tipping point of common sense where they stop believing we win acceptance from jihadis by denying our own identities. Governments prefer to take the soft approach which only offers a safe haven to the activities that end up devastating even more innocent lives.

The idea peddled by limp wristed governments that Muslims need special protection only makes it worse. ALL citizens of any denomination, race or background deserve to feel safe. Yes, everyone knows it is a radical minority that is causing the problems. There is a paramount need to work with the Muslim community to root out those that only bring more distrust. No, it isn’t a license to condone bigotry either. However unless they feel we are ‘truly’ standing behind them rather than virtue signaling from the safety of a smartphone nothing will get better. That is an absolute. The further governments repress  the freedom of people to openly express their feelings the worse it will get.

We are taught from the earliest age that two wrongs don’t make a right. The rise of vigilantism is a natural reaction to governments that stick to the politically correct dialogue and skirt around the issues by trying to gag people whether by law (Canada’s M-103) or threat. Politicians cannot win the will of the people by shutting them up. They have to listen. Because the government isn’t listening militia will spawn and do what they deem necessary for the public interest, The last thing government needs is the widespread growth of people taking the law into their own hands. There are two things that ran through the mind of truck attacker Darren Osborne – he’d either be killed or be locked up for a long time after committing his terror. That is a pretty big price to pay but one he obviously thought worth paying.

To quote Al-Husseini again,

What have the Muslims shown [the West] other than the bombing of their capital cities? What have the Muslims shown them other than vehicular attacks? What have the Muslims shown them other than shooting at them? What have the Muslims shown them other than burning them alive in cages? They burn other Muslims alive as well. They all claim to have a monopoly over Islam. What have the Muslims shown [the Westerners] to make them love them, and welcome them in their countries?…

…The Muslims are constantly whining, lamenting, and wailing: The West is conspiring against us. Fine, let’s assume that the West is conspiring against you and only sees your negative image. Where is your positive image? The Muslims of the Abbasid state presented a positive image. They exported scientific research through the so-called “Muslim” scholars, most of whom, by the way, were not from the Arabian Peninsula. None of them were from the Arabian Peninsula. They were all from North Africa, and from what are now called the former Soviet Islamic republics of central Asia…

…What have the Arab countries contributed to the world? Nothing. What have the Islamic countries contributed to the world? Nothing. What have they contributed in the field of scientific research? Two, three, four, or ten scientists in the course of 1,435 years? C’mon, man! Let’s forget about 435 years and keep just one millennium. Ten important scientists in 1,000 years?! Who invented the airplane? The missile? The space shuttle? Centrifuges? Quantum mechanics? The Theory of Relativity? Who? Where did the most important philosophers come from? Not from here. And you still expect them to love us?! And then you say: “Terror-sponsoring countries like Britain deserve…” Nonsense! People do not deserve to be killed, slaughtered, or run over by a car.”

Al-Husseini makes some very valid points yet why does the media not choose to highlight his stance? The irony of those who have seen his video clip is the social media comment section. Even those who take quite a strong stance on diversity and tolerance joked along the lines of  “is he still alive?” Doesn’t that sort of truly reveal the inner feelings of people rather than the public perception they seek to portray openly for fear of recrimination? We should applaud Al-Husseini’s bravery to speak out like this. His comments are exactly the type of bold response that throws the West’s constant rolling over into the dustbin. We can be sure Al-Husseini’s comments are heartfelt and a wish for all to climb out from behind the protection of identity politics and embrace ‘reality’.

Since Osborne’s truck attack, Tommy Robinson’s book ‘Enemy of the State’ is now the number one selling book on Kindle and paperback. So UK government, are you sure you understand the mood of the nation? They are more than likely to back Mr Al-Husseini’s views than yours.