Lebrun: Flames "getting late in the process" of hiring a GM

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JJolg

It's really not. Best person for the role period leave that b.s out of it. Everyone can do everything, you believe one thing great, don't push your views on others and they should do the same to you.

Inclusion and rights for people aren’t “views”.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by JJolg

It's really not. Best person for the role period leave that b.s out of it. Everyone can do everything, you believe one thing great, don't push your views on others and they should do the same to you.

Sounds like someone who has never had to worry about be hate crimed at or after a hockey game.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Is there a middle ground on CP where someone can believe in inclusiveness and also expect the hire to be the best person for the job?
Seems like an unnecessary arguement direction for this thread to have to go.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by tfi racing

Does it really matter who the next GM is? Until the current ownership is long gone, it will be nothing but the same old story for yet another decade or so. Hey Snoop and/or Ryan Reynolds, since that Ottawa thang ain't lookin good, maybe youse guys should take a look into the Flames, just a bit closer to home for either of y'all...

And it would not take long for the same mob to go after them. Lets be honest...no matter whom the ownership group is, the same posters are going to whine and complain, because make no mistake their results will be the same. This incessant bitching about the 63, 71, 72, and 92 year old ownership group is all based on heresy, even jealousy and they are easy targets for those who just want to find fault.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Posters who have no first hand clue of the actual performance of the male candidates: 'He could be good in the role although I've never heard of him prior to this thread and couldn't even pick his voice out in a crowd.'

'She wouldn't be a good hire because it's only for diversity!' Coincidentally, they could pick her voice out in a crowd.

[Dan403]

Hire the best person.

Their genitals should have no bearing on the discussion.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Is there a middle ground on CP where someone can believe in inclusiveness and also expect the hire to be the best person for the job?
Seems like an unnecessary arguement direction for this thread to have to go.

For what it's worth, I was referring mostly to the Bud Light flag. Which really has nothing to do with this topic but using in the context the poster did was a dog whistle.

Pull the view back a little more, best person for the job is often influenced by someone's internal bias (prefer someone young vs old or vice versa). Which is something hiring managers should be aware of their own internal bias as they go forward during the search and select.

Also it would be silly to not consider PR/optics in a hire like GM of your hockey team. It's been said theyve talked to Stan Bowman, which comes with a specific amount of negative PR contrasted with hiring someone like Conroy who does't come with that 'baggage'.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Redlan

And it would not take long for the same mob to go after them. Lets be honest...no matter whom the ownership group is, the same posters are going to whine and complain, because make no mistake their results will be the same. This incessant bitching about the 63, 71, 72, and 92 year old ownership group is all based on heresy, even jealousy and they are easy targets for those who just want to find fault.

Won't someone please think of the elderly billionaires!

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by JJolg

It's really not. Best person for the role period leave that b.s out of it. Everyone can do everything, you believe one thing great, don't push your views on others and they should do the same to you.

I implore you to get educated on this matter. It is NOT about the best person for the role. It's about EQUITY in the face of a male-dominated sector.

[Paulie Walnuts]

If we promote Conroy maybe we hire a female AGM?

Hopefully one fully invested in the analytics of the game.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Looch City

I implore you to get educated on this matter. It is NOT about the best person for the role. It's about EQUITY in the face of a male-dominated sector.

It's not about the best person for the role?

Are we honestly saying the right thing to do is eliminate x% of those interested in the role in order to take a step towards balancing the sector.

Look I have a daughter, and I never want her discriminated against in the work place full stop.

But I also don't expect her to be given roles based on her gender when she's not the most qualified applicant.

(ducking for oncoming attack)

[liamenator]

"can we just hire the best person for the job" -- as if there is a single best person for a job like this. As all the reporting shows, there are literally dozens of qualified candidates. What is so interesting about the search is that each offers the organization a different possible future. Some might be better fits than others, some are higher risk-higher reward, some are known commodities with warts and lower ceilings.

One avenue is to hire someone from a group typically overlooked in these searches -- a woman, a non-hockey background, a racialized candidate, a young person, etc. It's good and productive to have some folks argue that the Flames and other organizations should move in one of those directions.

Not all of those arguments are compelling. But we needn't throw out the basic premise in the face of bad arguments, just encourage better ones (as some here are doing).

[PepsiFree]

Why is suggesting that a woman could be the best person for the role met with “No diversity hiring! Hire the best person for the role!”?

It’s not untrue to say hiring the first female GM would be a progressive move. But it’s extremely stupid to suggest that it makes it a political one or that they couldn’t be the best person. Hire the best person, of course, and if that happens to be a woman then that would be pretty progressive for the NHL. Pretty cool.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not about the best person for the role?

Are we honestly saying the right thing to do is eliminate x% of those interested in the role in order to take a step towards balancing the sector.

Look I have a daughter, and I never want her discriminated against in the work place full stop.

But I also don't expect her to be given roles based on her gender when she's not the most qualified applicant.

(ducking for oncoming attack)

It became a male dominated industry over decades and it's not going to change overnight. Hiring a woman for equity reasons over qualifications is a sure way to reinforce biases when she fails. I have absolutely no issue with a female being hired as GM but only if she got the job on merit. The league needs to start rising females up the ranks gradually like the route Conny took. Fast tracking them is just setting them and the movement up to fail.

[Paulie Walnuts]

What if the best candidate identifies as a cat are we against that?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Perhaps people should define 'merit' in an industry where most candidates are just rotating positions after having failed at a prior position.

Merit isn't some black and white concept. It has its own biases.

[Romanrules]

RE: a female AGM devoted to analytics. I keep wondering if:
A) anyone has interviewed Megan Chayka,
B) would she be interested in a role like that?

Based on her company, she seems to do a good job of blending the numbers with attributes that can be viewed with your eyes, ie: slot shots, slot passes, etc. Now she would be someone I would hope gets interviewed because she seems to understand the game with data and watching/playing. I just hope she doesn't get overlooked because she's John Chayka's brother is all.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Won't someone please think of the elderly billionaires!

NSFW!

As opposed to young billionaires? What is your point? Any potential ownership group is going to be the same with regards to their financials. This narrative has become farcical.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

What if the best candidate identifies as a cat are we against that?

Sounds purrr...fect to me!

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not about the best person for the role?

Are we honestly saying the right thing to do is eliminate x% of those interested in the role in order to take a step towards balancing the sector.

Look I have a daughter, and I never want her discriminated against in the work place full stop.

But I also don't expect her to be given roles based on her gender when she's not the most qualified applicant.

(ducking for oncoming attack)

Equity is about being fair and impartial, not about qualifications. Qualifications doesn't mean there's only one person "best for the job". There a dozens of people that COULD be "best for this job".

This entire discussion only came up because someone brought up a Hayley Wickenheiser (who has a pretty extensive Resume btw). Why is that?