NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity'
-
@antipodean @Rembrandt TBH, I actually don’t understand why this is an issue other than ‘culture wars’? (So thought I best reply now before this gets moved to the Politics section).
Not every push for change is culture wars or the erosion of one group’s standing in society. Diversity can improve an organisation and I assume NZR feels it will help improve theirs.
I work for an organisation that could have an entire BoD of one culture, but it’s not because they feel it would lock them into one type of thinking and they feel diverse backgrounds and ideas are actually beneficial when directing the business. Also, another example of this is the better iwi organisations who have diverse boards on their commercial arms for the same reasons.
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
@antipodean said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
I didn't suggest it was
My response was based on this line Who wants people without an understanding of rugby and commercial nous on the board ffs? which implied, in my reading of it, that they weren't there on merit.
@Rembrandt said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
When your entire being, your history, views, life experiences and qualifications for a job can be summarised simply by the pigment of your skin then you've just institutionalised actual racism.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the bold highlights diversity, is diversity ... not just pigmentation. I think that's the difference NZR wants.
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
@antipodean @Rembrandt TBH, I actually don’t understand why this is an issue other than ‘culture wars’? (So thought I best reply now before this gets moved to the Politics section).
Not every push for change is culture wars or the erosion of one group’s standing in society. Diversity can improve an organisation and I assume NZR feels it will help improve theirs.
I work for an organisation that could have an entire BoD of one culture, but it’s not because they feel it would lock them into one type of thinking and they feel diverse backgrounds and ideas are actually beneficial when directing the business. Also, another example of this is the better iwi organisations who have diverse boards on their commercial arms for the same reasons.
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
@antipodean said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
I didn't suggest it was
My response was based on this line Who wants people without an understanding of rugby and commercial nous on the board ffs? which implied, in my reading of it, that they weren't there on merit.
@Rembrandt said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
When your entire being, your history, views, life experiences and qualifications for a job can be summarised simply by the pigment of your skin then you've just institutionalised actual racism.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the bold highlights diversity, is diversity ... not just pigmentation. I think that's the difference NZR wants.
That may be what NZR wants but is it what the article was referring to? Doubt it.
-
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
@antipodean @Rembrandt TBH, I actually don’t understand why this is an issue other than ‘culture wars’? (So thought I best reply now before this gets moved to the Politics section).
Not every push for change is culture wars or the erosion of one group’s standing in society. Diversity can improve an organisation and I assume NZR feels it will help improve theirs.
I work for an organisation that could have an entire BoD of one culture, but it’s not because they feel it would lock them into one type of thinking and they feel diverse backgrounds and ideas are actually beneficial when directing the business. Also, another example of this is the better iwi organisations who have diverse boards on their commercial arms for the same reasons.
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
@antipodean said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
I didn't suggest it was
My response was based on this line Who wants people without an understanding of rugby and commercial nous on the board ffs? which implied, in my reading of it, that they weren't there on merit.
@Rembrandt said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
When your entire being, your history, views, life experiences and qualifications for a job can be summarised simply by the pigment of your skin then you've just institutionalised actual racism.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the bold highlights diversity, is diversity ... not just pigmentation. I think that's the difference NZR wants.
That may be what NZR wants but is it what the article was referring to? Doubt it.
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
That may be what NZR wants but is it what the article was referring to? Doubt it.
You expect me to read the articles now? That's anti the ethos of the Fern!!!
Nah, I read the article, it was quite confusing and the writer seemed want to cross story lines between diversity and general governance structures in parts - TBH, my posting on the thread was more a response to @Rembrandt and @antipodean's discussions than the article itself.
-
All this inclusive , feel good crap really pisses me off . Appointing anyone to any position based on anything other than merit is utter bollocks . Personally I would hate the thought that the people I worked with thought I hadn't earned my place .
-
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
It shouldn't even be a factor IMO, it should just be on merit alone. If that means the best candidate is a woman, or black, or gay should make no difference.
Also means if the best candidate is a white guy over 50, also no problem.
As soon as you start filtering candidates by physical characteristics like skin colour or sex, you are no longer selecting on merit. The key is make sure you get a wide range of candidates, and not exclude anybody, and then pick the best person for the job.
-
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
It shouldn't even be a factor IMO, it should just be on merit alone. If that means the best candidate is a woman, or black, or gay should make no difference.
Also means if the best candidate is a white guy over 50, also no problem.
As soon as you start filtering candidates by physical characteristics like skin colour or sex, you are no longer selecting on merit. The key is make sure you get a wide range of candidates, and not exclude anybody, and then pick the best person for the job.
-
@Kirwan I think one of NZRs issues is they feel they’re not getting that wide range of candidates.
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
@Kirwan I think one of NZRs issues is they feel they’re not getting that wide range of candidates.
And I have no problem with them addressing that issue. I do have an issue with them being judged on the diversity they select on the board, however, as it's a meaningless metric.
-
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
It shouldn't even be a factor IMO, it should just be on merit alone. If that means the best candidate is a woman, or black, or gay should make no difference.
Also means if the best candidate is a white guy over 50, also no problem.
As soon as you start filtering candidates by physical characteristics like skin colour or sex, you are no longer selecting on merit. The key is make sure you get a wide range of candidates, and not exclude anybody, and then pick the best person for the job.
@Kirwan said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
It shouldn't even be a factor IMO, it should just be on merit alone. If that means the best candidate is a woman, or black, or gay should make no difference.
I don't necessarily disagree, though I think the background of candidates is relevant and being a woman/black/whatever can make a candidate more suitable for a role.
I think it's really pertinent to Board structures, where ultimately you want a diverse range of viewpoints and experiences around the table.
I'm critical of the Rugby Australia Board because I think it's dominated by white privately schooled men from Sydney or Brisbane. Considering the high number of people from non-Anglo backgrounds playing our game, or people from outside Sydney/Brisbane, I think it would be wise for them to look outside this narrow demographic.
A popular (and accurate) critique of RA is they only act in the interests of a narrow group of people on the Eastern Seaboard, without much regard for the rest of the country. When you look at the Board, it's hard not to see why those decisions have been made in that way.
-
@antipodean @Rembrandt TBH, I actually don’t understand why this is an issue other than ‘culture wars’? (So thought I best reply now before this gets moved to the Politics section).
Not every push for change is culture wars or the erosion of one group’s standing in society. Diversity can improve an organisation and I assume NZR feels it will help improve theirs.
I work for an organisation that could have an entire BoD of one culture, but it’s not because they feel it would lock them into one type of thinking and they feel diverse backgrounds and ideas are actually beneficial when directing the business. Also, another example of this is the better iwi organisations who have diverse boards on their commercial arms for the same reasons.
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
@antipodean said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
I didn't suggest it was
My response was based on this line Who wants people without an understanding of rugby and commercial nous on the board ffs? which implied, in my reading of it, that they weren't there on merit.
@Rembrandt said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
When your entire being, your history, views, life experiences and qualifications for a job can be summarised simply by the pigment of your skin then you've just institutionalised actual racism.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the bold highlights diversity, is diversity ... not just pigmentation. I think that's the difference NZR wants.
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
@antipodean @Rembrandt TBH, I actually don’t understand why this is an issue other than ‘culture wars’? (So thought I best reply now before this gets moved to the Politics section).
Not every push for change is culture wars or the erosion of one group’s standing in society. Diversity can improve an organisation and I assume NZR feels it will help improve theirs.
I work for an organisation that could have an entire BoD of one culture, but it’s not because they feel it would lock them into one type of thinking and they feel diverse backgrounds and ideas are actually beneficial when directing the business. Also, another example of this is the better iwi organisations who have diverse boards on their commercial arms for the same reasons.
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
@antipodean said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
I didn't suggest it was
My response was based on this line Who wants people without an understanding of rugby and commercial nous on the board ffs? which implied, in my reading of it, that they weren't there on merit.
@Rembrandt said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
When your entire being, your history, views, life experiences and qualifications for a job can be summarised simply by the pigment of your skin then you've just institutionalised actual racism.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the bold highlights diversity, is diversity ... not just pigmentation. I think that's the difference NZR wants.
I think you're having an argument of your own invention. Nothing I've said is against the concept of greater diversity on boards. In fact quite the opposite. There's strong evidence that gender diversity in boards is tied to financial performance, it is generally profitable after accounting for change and that it can reduce securities fraud for example.
I believe executive positions should be merit based and that given the choice if two candidates are the same, why wouldn't you elect to take one that increases the possibilities that they look at problems and hence solutions from different perspectives. The greatest threat to companies is group think.
My point was to the quote:
While 2016 and 2018 saw Farah Palmer and Sir Michael Jones elected to NZR's board, Wednesday's 2019 annual general meeting saw three middle-aged white men either elected and reappointed.
And they weren't even close to adding more diversity to the board, with the two provincial candidates put forward both cut from the same cloth.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
It shouldn't even be a factor IMO, it should just be on merit alone. If that means the best candidate is a woman, or black, or gay should make no difference.
I don't necessarily disagree, though I think the background of candidates is relevant and being a woman/black/whatever can make a candidate more suitable for a role.
I think it's really pertinent to Board structures, where ultimately you want a diverse range of viewpoints and experiences around the table.
I'm critical of the Rugby Australia Board because I think it's dominated by white privately schooled men from Sydney or Brisbane. Considering the high number of people from non-Anglo backgrounds playing our game, or people from outside Sydney/Brisbane, I think it would be wise for them to look outside this narrow demographic.
A popular (and accurate) critique of RA is they only act in the interests of a narrow group of people on the Eastern Seaboard, without much regard for the rest of the country. When you look at the Board, it's hard not to see why those decisions have been made in that way.
@barbarian That viewport works if all white people think the same and all brown people think the same. Again, look for the best candidate based on competance. If the school/background is relevant then include that in the criteria for selection.
-
@barbarian That viewport works if all white people think the same and all brown people think the same. Again, look for the best candidate based on competance. If the school/background is relevant then include that in the criteria for selection.
@Kirwan said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
@barbarian That viewport works if all white people think the same and all brown people think the same.
That's the disturbing aspect of the article, the assumption that your viewpoint is predetermined by physical characteristics outside of your control.
-
@barbarian That viewport works if all white people think the same and all brown people think the same. Again, look for the best candidate based on competance. If the school/background is relevant then include that in the criteria for selection.
-
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
@antipodean @Rembrandt TBH, I actually don’t understand why this is an issue other than ‘culture wars’? (So thought I best reply now before this gets moved to the Politics section).
Not every push for change is culture wars or the erosion of one group’s standing in society. Diversity can improve an organisation and I assume NZR feels it will help improve theirs.
I work for an organisation that could have an entire BoD of one culture, but it’s not because they feel it would lock them into one type of thinking and they feel diverse backgrounds and ideas are actually beneficial when directing the business. Also, another example of this is the better iwi organisations who have diverse boards on their commercial arms for the same reasons.
What is the issue with a Board slightly more representative of the population when they’re selected on merit?
@antipodean said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
I didn't suggest it was
My response was based on this line Who wants people without an understanding of rugby and commercial nous on the board ffs? which implied, in my reading of it, that they weren't there on merit.
@Rembrandt said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
When your entire being, your history, views, life experiences and qualifications for a job can be summarised simply by the pigment of your skin then you've just institutionalised actual racism.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the bold highlights diversity, is diversity ... not just pigmentation. I think that's the difference NZR wants.
I think you're having an argument of your own invention. Nothing I've said is against the concept of greater diversity on boards. In fact quite the opposite. There's strong evidence that gender diversity in boards is tied to financial performance, it is generally profitable after accounting for change and that it can reduce securities fraud for example.
I believe executive positions should be merit based and that given the choice if two candidates are the same, why wouldn't you elect to take one that increases the possibilities that they look at problems and hence solutions from different perspectives. The greatest threat to companies is group think.
My point was to the quote:
While 2016 and 2018 saw Farah Palmer and Sir Michael Jones elected to NZR's board, Wednesday's 2019 annual general meeting saw three middle-aged white men either elected and reappointed.
And they weren't even close to adding more diversity to the board, with the two provincial candidates put forward both cut from the same cloth.
-
@antipodean So we basically agree then? But you didn’t link to that specific quote so how was I supposed to know you weren’t just blanket dismissing all diversity as without merit?
@Nepia said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
@antipodean So we basically agree then? But you didn’t link to that specific quote so how was I supposed to know you weren’t just blanket dismissing all diversity as without merit?
Yeah, fair point there's enough ambiguity in my original post because of the lack of context to make the inference you did.
-
Think you guys have found a good middle ground. I don't think most people are inheritly against diversity, it's just when organisations set or are set targets regardless of who applies when problems arise. Everybody loses there; some people may miss out on jobs despite being the strongest candidate, while others may not want to be promoted based on things they have no control over. Not to mention the situation where people are questioning appointments because of publicly stated targets.
There are lots of areas with an imbalance which is caused by factors that go way deeper than just discrimination, especially when it comes to men and women. A lot of these targets are simply unattainable
I've no problem with NZR casting the net wide, that's good to see, but we really need to make sure that heirarchies in our society are based on merit as much as possible.
-
How diverse is Netball New Zealand Board? maybe they should swap or amalgamate with NZRFU to sure up this diversity thing?
@Nevorian said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
How diverse is Netball New Zealand Board? maybe they should swap or amalgamate with NZRFU to sure up this diversity thing?
I’d say they are bracing themselves for the issue of blokes wanting to play in women’s teams that must surely be coming their way.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
It shouldn't even be a factor IMO, it should just be on merit alone. If that means the best candidate is a woman, or black, or gay should make no difference.
I don't necessarily disagree, though I think the background of candidates is relevant and being a woman/black/whatever can make a candidate more suitable for a role.
I think it's really pertinent to Board structures, where ultimately you want a diverse range of viewpoints and experiences around the table.
I'm critical of the Rugby Australia Board because I think it's dominated by white privately schooled men from Sydney or Brisbane. Considering the high number of people from non-Anglo backgrounds playing our game, or people from outside Sydney/Brisbane, I think it would be wise for them to look outside this narrow demographic.
A popular (and accurate) critique of RA is they only act in the interests of a narrow group of people on the Eastern Seaboard, without much regard for the rest of the country. When you look at the Board, it's hard not to see why those decisions have been made in that way.
@barbarian said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
@Kirwan said in NZ Rugby Board representational 'diversity':
It shouldn't even be a factor IMO, it should just be on merit alone. If that means the best candidate is a woman, or black, or gay should make no difference.
I don't necessarily disagree, though I think the background of candidates is relevant and being a woman/black/whatever can make a candidate more suitable for a role.
I think it's really pertinent to Board structures, where ultimately you want a diverse range of viewpoints and experiences around the table.
I'm critical of the Rugby Australia Board because I think it's dominated by white privately schooled men from Sydney or Brisbane. Considering the high number of people from non-Anglo backgrounds playing our game, or people from outside Sydney/Brisbane, I think it would be wise for them to look outside this narrow demographic.
A popular (and accurate) critique of RA is they only act in the interests of a narrow group of people on the Eastern Seaboard, without much regard for the rest of the country. When you look at the Board, it's hard not to see why those decisions have been made in that way.
I would agree to an extent, but the issue is more the schools or clubs they played for and socio-economic background rather than the colour of their skin. I doubt having private school educated non-anglos or women will make any difference. It's not like Dilip Kumar's reign as CEO was a resounding success.
-
I have kind of enjoyed the move to merit based appointments over the past 20 years after they moved away from heavy provincial bias and horse-trading. I think it's coincided with a good period of success. I would need to see a compelling case to move away from appointing people based on merit.
FWIW for the virtue signallers I believe the NZRU can lay claim to two female board members as Andrew Goolightly identified as a nun on the 1996 Springbok tour.
-
I think with Womens Rugby becoming more prominent now than what it was say 10 years ago we will more than likely see more women get involved on the administration side of things up to Board level and I am sure this will be a good thing if they have the right rugby credentials. We want people who have lived and breathed rugby all of their lives and have a bit of nous upstairs to be running the sport
