Most employers hire people based on their qualifications, but a new study claims the process can be unfair.
A study published in a journal of the American Psychological Association now states that socioeconomic disparities should be the focus when searching for potential employees.
The researchers conducted five experiments in which participants were given general information about the two types of candidates, revealing that those who learned about merit-based hiring perceived it as less fair.
The study concluded that merit-based hiring fuels racial inequality as “members of marginalized racial groups tend to experience socioeconomic disadvantages more frequently than members of privileged racial groups.”
Study of 3,300 participants found merit-based hiring ‘unfair’
Merit-based hiring occurs when an employer hires a candidate solely based on their resume, achievements, including higher education, and past career advancement.
People who suffer from socioeconomic disparities include those who come from low-income areas, did not have access to higher education, and were therefore unable to advance in their careers.
Lead researcher Daniela Goya-Tocchetto and her team conducted five experiments, and in the first two experiments, groups read about merit-based hiring, but one group was not given additional information about the candidates.
In the second group, the researchers informed the participants about the socioeconomic disadvantages of the candidate and the advantages of another candidate.
The researchers said the second group found that hiring or promotion based on merit is less fair and offers less equal opportunity for candidates.
He study He included examples of two employees who were being considered for a job promotion: Both employees attended college, but one was a high performer while the other struggled to prove that he was not capable of handling more responsibilities.
The study said the first employee’s high performance rate was likely due to his wide range of extracurricular activities at university, while the second employee’s poor performance was “probably a consequence of having less work-related experience” because he did not did no internship. or extracurricular activities before joining the company.
In this example, participants were asked to evaluate whether it was fair for the candidate who worked the hardest to get the job and whether employees had an equal opportunity to compete for the promotion.
The study found that candidates who received additional background information about lower-performing candidates perceived significantly less equality of opportunity than the group that did not receive background information.
The study showed that participants who did not receive additional information about a candidate’s socioeconomic background were more likely to believe that the hiring process was fair. Meanwhile, those who received information about his background changed their stance and said the hiring process was less fair.
‘Socioeconomic disadvantage early in life can undermine educational attainment, exam results and work experiences. In this way, inequality can undermine equality of opportunity,” saying Goya-Tocchetto, PhD, assistant professor of organization and human resources at the University at Buffalo-State University of New York.
“However, when we evaluate the fairness of merit-based processes, people tend to ignore this broader context and the effects of inequality.”
Goya-Tocchetto advises employers to focus on the disadvantages a potential candidate has faced rather than another candidate who has achieved more in their field and has a more suitable resume.
“Hiring managers should learn about the effects of socioeconomic inequalities on access to opportunities and consider a broader range of work experience when evaluating different candidates,” Goya-Tocchetto said.
Regardless of their political affiliation, the study found that participants on both ends of the spectrum changed their perception of fairness in hiring after receiving additional information about a candidate’s socioeconomic background.
The study comes as some Republican leaders are pushing back against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at public universities and in state government.
Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT) signed a bill into law this week banning diversity training, hiring and inclusion programs, making him the latest state to join the anti-diversity movement.
Other states that have canceled or proposed canceling EDI programs include Florida, Missouri, Iowa and South Carolina.
“We have been concerned about some DEI programs and policies, particularly with hiring practices, and this bill offers a balanced solution,” Cox saying.
However, the study said that despite Republicans’ latest stance on DEI programs, conservative participants said they believe merit-based hiring and promotion are generally fair, but still adjusted their perceptions of fairness after to learn about the socioeconomic disparities of the candidates.
“Members of marginalized racial groups tend to experience socioeconomic disadvantages more frequently than members of privileged racial groups, and the negative consequences of these disadvantages may be even worse for racial minorities,” Goya-Tocchetto said.
He added: “Focusing on socioeconomic considerations could generate more support and still help address racial inequality.”
Dailymail.com has contacted Goya-Tocchetto for comment.