Wonderful! Well said and one of your best short commentaries. Too often we see perceived Politically Correct efforts compromising standards.

I am a listener to KNX-AM, and I appreciate your commentaries, particularly with regard to parenting. However, I must take issue with a phrase you used a week or two ago: FORCED DIVERSITY. I cannot think of a way to explain such a phrase, other than covert racism. I believe jobs are rarely if ever given to unqualified applicants because of ethnicity. We live in a diverse society, and that ADDS to our greatness. I am a white, Jewish American married to a Cuban-American woman. We have a beautiful 4-year old daughter. I am not a typical AM radio listener: I plan to vote for Barack Obama.

"Forced diversity" may be a little strong, but it is certainly true that many companies and institutions are being "encouraged" from within and without to increase diversity within their organizations. Of course, anytime an additional layer of qualifications or requirements (i.e., age race, sex, etc.) is added beyond "best qualified" in the search for a candidate, the search is by definition skewed. That additional layer of qualification - if it is not directly related to the job requirements - is specifically designed to favor some candidates over others. While this process hopefully does not select unqualified candidates, it almost certainly can result in less qualified candidates being selected.

It is a thinly veiled argument about Forced Diversity. People have been excluded from participation in jobs and education based on race and a number of other factors for a long time. How is that supposed to be righted? Are we to wait for all of the racists to just stop being racist? The one thing I have noticed in these types of discussions of affirmative action is there is almost always the use of the words "unqualified" or "less qualified." Let's say for the sake of argument that because of affirmative action, a lesser qualified candidate was selected to enter a particular program. Understand that this selection is only an entry point. If we would take the "less qualified" all the way through to the end of the process, then you are saying all of the professors, instructors, and teachers have all lowered their standards to allow that candidate to make it all the way to the end of the process. Do we really believe that's happening? At the end of these rigorous programs, a qualified candidate will either emerge or become a disqualified candidate.

Dear Mr. Josephson,

I agree with the pursuit of excellence. I am in a position at work where I have produced to the best of my ability for nine years. However, on many occasions the products I have produced (reports) have never even been read.
I have found errors and fixable anomalies in the data I am asked to use and have been invited to aid in the correction of this data. When I am asked for input, I give it. When I see an issue, I offer input constructively. I usually see a problem (challenge) as it is forming and put up appropriate warning signs. Management does not want to hear of these challenges. Quite frequently, I am asked to clean up the mess after my warnings were not heeded. I am not always patient or calm when these situations arise and this becomes the issue rather than the management's inaction.
At this time, my motivation to continue to pursue excellence has dissipated. I know I have a moral and ethical responsibility to do my job to the best of my ability. How do I regain my own sense of purpose and return to the days when it did not matter how I was treated, it only mattered that I was doing my best?

I started to work for Hughes Aircraft in 1973, a major defense contractor. Some minorities were hired, given a desk and an office without being given a specific job just to have some minorities on the payroll.
This was a requirement of the government to secure future contracts.

I've spent all of my professional career in Human Resources and a great deal of that time in evaluation and selection of "qualified" candidates. Although there are quantifiable criteria to measure qualifications, many criteria are subjective and perceptual in nature. In other words, "qualified" is in the eye of the beholder. I've been around long enough to have seen the beginnings of affirmative action and diversity, and my observation is that I have been fortunate to work in organizations where the label is less important than the content. I work with people from all backgrounds, cultures, religious beliefs, ages and life orientations. While there are always differences, we respect what our individual backgrounds contribute to the whole. It is our nature to differentiate between who "we" are and who "they" are. However, most people learn with time and experience to test their assumptions and evolve to consider people for who they are and not for what group they belong to. Companies that encourage a culture that promotes this have in my opinion, a tremendous advantage over those who don't.

Over the years, many corporations have lost regard for their employees. It’s short-term thinking in order to boost profits to make the shareholders happy. I'm working on perpetual contract for the past 4 years. After being on "probation" for this much time, I'm tired and am thinking about not pursuing my next contract. There are effects on being on contract; for example, it's difficult getting a mortgage when you're in a contract position.

I try to do my best and often put in more than required. In return, I'm just given more and more to do to the point where I'm overwhelmed. You're only as good as your last contract around here so you jump the hurdle that keeps getting placed higher and higher.

I don't think my story is unique. If a company doesn't want to treat an employee more than an expendable asset, how can a sense of loyalty be expected from an employee when he/she doesn’t get any in return? Corporate management should take a look at how the lowest level positions are treated…it should be a mutually respective two-way street to foster excellence.