“the rest are just plain lazy.” - didn’t see that coming - outstanding! - but it’s true.

Your point about taking the time to establish a rigorous management system is exactly the point - thanks for that!

BTW: While I neither inquire into nor discriminate on the basis of the controversial issue referred to here, you’re both hired.

You’re hired.

You eloquently illustrated my point from yesterday’s post. I’ll add a little more…

Organizations that use culling methods such as requiring an MBA fall into two camps: for a few jobs, the MBA is part of the BFOQ; the rest are just plain lazy. Research and experience shows that an MBA could be a ticket to play. It is no indication of managerial or leadership prowess. If organizations took the time to establish a rigorous talent management system - which includes recruiting and promoting - the BFOQs would be a true measure of entry to a job - not a cheap culling method.

This is a great discussion and I appreciate your time and thoughts on looking at the many facets of this topic!

Make it a great day!

Joe

BTW: boxers.

Thanks for providing the background on the BFOQ and on the regulatory and legislative battle against discrimination in general - excellent summary.

I think you point, with this, to another angle, here. One of my reasons for bringing up the BFOQ was note that it has helped encourage firms themselves to come to a better understanding of the requirements of the positions they design, and of the requirements, precursors, and predictors of them. But it is probably also true that it - or the overall campaign you describe - has raised awareness among prospective and actual employees that they can and should be aware of what all of this says about their employers, and that when they can vote with their feet they probably should.

Thanks again for stopping by with this!

One thing to mention about the BFOQ is that, in law, it only applies to certain protected human categories.

Holding a particular religious belief, for instance, may be a BFOQ for a Christian camp counselor. However, requiring someone be Christian would not be a BFOQ for working as an executive at a secular commercial organization like Wal-Mart. Employers and managers exercising such discrimination would be subject to federal action, starting with the EEOC, under Title VII.

The federal protected classes under Title VII are 1)Religion, 2)Race or Color, 3)National Origin, and 4)Sex.

I believe it’s another national law that prohibits discrimination based on previous military experience, and still another that prohibits discrimination against women who are or plan to become pregnant. Other state and local laws, depending on the venue, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Employers are free to discriminate (Note: I’m not saying it’s right) based on any number of other categories that may have nothing at all to do with BFOQ, such as height, weight, hair color, temperament, beauty, underwear preference (boxers or briefs?), college degree (including MBA), etc.

It is necessary for people to exercise discernment when selecting employees, so discrimination narrowly defined, is a necessary right. It’s impossible for politicians in their ivory towers to determine all things against which employers may exercise their discernment.