A study of significant relevance to the current discourse on hiring practices, published by the American Psychological Association, reveals a shift in perspective across the political spectrum. It shows that both liberals and conservatives tend to perceive merit-based hiring as unfair after exposure to the ramifications of socioeconomic disparities. This finding, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, underscores a notable shift in perspective across the political spectrum regarding hiring practices.
Lead researcher Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, PhD, an assistant professor of organization and human resources at the University at Buffalo-State University of New York, underscores the profound impact of early socioeconomic disadvantages on educational attainment, test performance, and professional experiences. These insights into the undermining effects of inequality on equal opportunity are often overlooked in assessments of merit-based processes despite their crucial role in shaping individual trajectories.
The study, encompassing five online experiments with over 3,300 participants, reveals the influence of contextual information on perceptions of merit-based hiring and promotion. In two experiments, participants encountered scenarios depicting merit-based selection criteria, with half receiving additional details on socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages among candidates. This contextual information had a significant impact, with liberal and conservative participants perceiving the processes as less equitable and inclusive.
Further experiments revealed a consistent trend: participants became increasingly critical of merit-based hiring and promotion systems upon learning about low-income obstacles to educational and career advancement opportunities — moreover, familiarity with socioeconomic disparities led to heightened support for initiatives fostering socioeconomic diversity in hiring practices.
Notably, the absence of race as a variable in these experiments prompts reflection on potential divergences in findings had race been a focal point. Goya-Tocchetto acknowledges that previous research indicates white conservatives may react defensively to discussions of racial inequity. Nonetheless, while initially inclined to view merit-based processes favourably, conservative participants adjusted their perceptions when confronted with socioeconomic disparities.
The study’s implications extend beyond hiring practices, touching on broader debates surrounding diversity initiatives. While initiatives targeting racial diversity have often sparked controversy, programs addressing socioeconomic disparities may offer a less contentious pathway towards fostering inclusivity. Goya-Tocchetto suggests that such initiatives, while tackling socioeconomic inequalities, may indirectly contribute to addressing racial inequality, given the disproportionate impact of socioeconomic disadvantages on racial minorities.
Goya-Tocchetto advocates for a more holistic approach to candidate evaluation among hiring managers in navigating these complex dynamics. Acknowledging the far-reaching effects of socioeconomic inequalities on access to opportunities, she calls for reevaluating traditional hiring criteria to ensure a more equitable and inclusive selection process.
More information: Goya-Tocchetto et al, Can selecting the most qualified candidate be unfair? Learning about socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages reduces the perceived fairness of meritocracy and increases support for socioeconomic diversity initiatives in organizations, Journal of Experimental Psychology. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001525
Journal information: Journal of Experimental Psychology Provided by American Psychological Association