- Study critiques merit-based hiring
- Socioeconomic disparities impact fairness
- Suggests reevaluating hiring practices
Although the majority of employers base their hiring decisions on qualifications, a recent study suggests that this practice may be unjust.
At present, researchers at the American Psychological Association believe that socioeconomic disparities should be considered when recruiting employees.
In five experiments, participants were given background information on two categories of candidates. The findings showed that those informed about merit-based hiring saw it as less fair.
Scholars concluded that merit-based employment worsens racial inequality because “individuals from marginalized racial groups face socioeconomic disadvantages more frequently than those from privileged racial groups.”
Merit-based hiring occurs when an employer selects a candidate solely based on their resume, achievements (including higher education), and career progression.
Those disadvantaged by socioeconomic disparities come from low-income areas, had no access to higher education, and thus lacked opportunities for professional advancement.
In two of the five experiments, researchers informed participants about merit-based hiring. However, one group received no additional details about the candidates.
Researchers made the second group aware of one candidate’s socioeconomic disadvantages and another’s advantages.
The findings from the second group indicated that merit-based hiring and promotion is less fair and offers fewer opportunities to candidates.
Evaluating Merit: Beyond Qualifications
The study looked at two college-educated employees up for promotion; one had outstanding performance, while the other struggled to show his capability for more responsibility.
The study suggested the first employee’s success was likely due to extensive extracurricular activities in college, while the second’s poor performance was “likely a result of having less work-related experience” due to a lack of internships and extracurricular activities before joining the company.
Participants judged whether the hardest-working candidate got the job and if all employees had an equal chance at the promotion.
The study found that candidates informed about the lower performers’ backgrounds perceived less opportunity equality than those who weren’t given such information.
Lead researcher Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, PhD, stated early socioeconomic disadvantages could impair academic and professional achievements, affecting equal opportunity.
However, when evaluating merit-based processes’ fairness, people often overlook this broader context and its impact on inequality.
Goya-Tocchetto advised employers to consider a candidate’s disadvantages over the achievements and resume of a more qualified candidate.
She recommended hiring managers be aware of socioeconomic inequalities’ impact on opportunity access and consider a wider range of work experience.
This research coincides with some Republican leaders opposing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in state government and public universities.
DEI Policies vs. Merit Fairness Debate
Recently, Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) signed a bill banning certain DEI practices, joining other states like Florida, Missouri, Iowa, and South Carolina in the anti-diversity movement.
“Join the Webull revolution in the UK and receive your free shares today.”
Cox expressed concerns about DEI policies, especially in hiring, and described the bill as a balanced solution.
Despite Republicans’ stance on DEI programs, the study by the American Psychological Association found that even conservative respondents viewed merit-based hiring as generally fair until they learned of the socioeconomic disparities among candidates.
Goya-Tocchetto highlighted that marginalized racial groups are likelier to face socioeconomic disadvantages, which can have more severe consequences for racial minorities.
She suggested that focusing on socioeconomic factors could increase support and reduce racial inequality.
