Quote:
The best possible outcome for me not excluding everyone is absolutely nothing. The best possible outcome for the woman being excluded is getting a promotion.
So to recap private, closed door meetings
My upside: none. My downside: losing my job and having trouble finding another
Her upside: getting a promotion. Her downside: not getting a promotion
From a straight risk/benefit, it makes no sense. There is only downside for me and no upside. All the upside is on her end and she has much less downside.
I disagree. You're making your whole organization weaker by creating blind spots for you and overvaluing your male direct reports contributions. You will eventually promote weaker people. (weaker in the sense that you may have developed a female colleague further than the male one)
Quote:
The rest of my post was just me justifying protecting my livelihood. I am not greedy or ambitious. I like my job, I help people, I support my family, and I get to be generous. Those are all things worth protecting. I don't really see a "Christian" imperative in this situation to risk my entire livelihood to ensure someone else has the possibility of career advancement. This is an entirely secular issue.
Again, I am not sure why you are measuring your livelihood against her "career advancement". it's her livelihood too. It's her family. its her generosity. it's her helping people.
For me, it enters into the Christian realm in that I can see how someone being held down in their career can be like being the one who was robbed on the side of the road.
I'm still confused about the whole desire for lack of fairness even with the risk. If a CEO said "yeah, I want to be protected from greed by delivering worse financial performance", the shareholders would be right in saying hes unfit, right? Likewise, if someone has direct reports that should be developed and leveraged for the company, why do we want leaders who are unable to meet with them 1 on 1? Again, seems unfit.