Not to hire the best person?

[Undaunted77]

We are looking for an apprentice.
Candidate A is a second generation immigrant, eldest sibling in a large family living in inner city social housing, attended a notorious local comprehensive and got OK A levels. Is currently 3/4 through a year long paid internship at one of our competitors.

Candidate B comes from a middle class family, for a while was educated at private school, lives in suburbs, has had a lot of support & encouragement from parents. Is forecast to get better A levels than candidate A did. Has only just left school and has no job yet.

Both are good and very motivated candidates - but B’s scores in all the elements of the assessment centre were undeniably better than A’s, and in terms
of personality is probably a better fit. B also has no job at present whereas A is mid-internship.

Would we BU to offer the apprenticeship to A, on the grounds that the opportunity may be more transformative for A, and A has not enjoyed the same advantages as B?

How do you know so much about their personal circumstances? School and a level results yes, but their housing tenure and number of siblings Tec seems a bit strange.

As someone from a background not dissimilar from candidate A I would be really upset and hurt to find out I hadn't been hired because I was the best candidate but because of my social background.

Also, as A is currently in an internship they may find it more naturally leads onto more opportunities. It is true it's easier to gain employment while employed.

You should hire the best candidate (regardless of your perceived social benefit of the role) for the apprenticeship and offer them first refusal.

No. That would be patronising and might do A a disservice in the longer run. They have a paid internship they should finish as it might lead to other opportunities. The immigration bit is irrelevant. Eldest sibling is irrelevant.
Why would you hold assessment centres and not go on the results? Assumedly the centres processes were mapped to ensure they were not discriminatory or allowing unconscious bias.

Do you see A as having more potential than B? I think it's not just about what they are like now, but what you imagine them to be like after developing in the role.

No, despite your intentions being good, that's incredibly patronising. Hire the best candidate for the job. Every time.

Hire the best person
There is no way it could be done differently where I work
We blind score all applications against measured criteria
Then interview against a second set of criteria (panel of 3) no discussion until scoring completed - then will debate if either very close or vast discrepancies
We rigidly document our decisions, scores and reasons - in case we are scrutinised

If A has shown strength and commitment through the internship then I would go for A over the person who's never had a job.

That would be incredibly patronising. Imagine if they found out that the only reason they got the job was because of the way you perceive them to be at something of a disadvantage because of their social status?! From what you’ve said literally the only thing that sets A ahead of B is that you feel sorry for them.

I think you probably need to alter the way you assess candidates to avoid things like this in future. You should be hiring the best, most competent person for the job. Not the one who has the best back story which makes you feel good about yourself for helping the “disadvantaged”.

@JaceLancs

Out of interest, do you ever feel like you end up with a candidate you have a less good feel for etc, because of the scoring?

Because we hire by a combination of tests and questions, and I can think of several candidates who we've chosen with imperfect test results, but clear aptitude and attitude benefits that would be very hard to 'score', though they have been a much better fit for the role.

Hire the best person for the job.

It doesn't matter whether they have the best grades, best experience, or if you just think they're the best because you liked them and think you'd work well with them. Or because they've overcome adversity and even if they're still behind, you think they have sufficient potential to be the best. (If your post is a badly worded version of this, then go for it).
But hiring someone because you feel they're disadvantaged is silly. Especially since A is the one with an internship already!

Alternatively, I would hire A. I would see this as my opportunity to support someone more disadvantaged and you know what, those people don’t get someone who takes that opportunity often in life. Wealthier children often do get this kind of nepotistic support so I’d look on it as my contribution to parity

You should be hiring the best, most competent person for the job. Not the one who has the best back story which makes you feel good about yourself for helping the “disadvantaged”

This. I'm sorry, OP but this whole post just reeks of middle class virtue signalling.

I think it is some sort of test to see who we think is the best candidate as the OP doesn't say.

I mean, why wouldn't you take someone who was already doing an internship with your competitors? In what world would that not compensate for slightly worse A' levels?

I would hire A. I would see this as my opportunity to support someone more disadvantaged

If I were A, it would sour the entire job to know that I was only hired because someone thought me being disadvantaged was the crucial hiring decision.

Any interviewee is essentially an unkown quantity so you can only use what you actually know:
A has work experience within your organisation (what is the feedback from them?), A levels with known grades.
B has no work experience anywhere, is expected better grades but doesn't have them yet, scored higher on the competency appraisal, seems a better personality fit for the existing team.
So, from what you know, which of these strengths are more important for the role?
That is all you can do, and legally you may be required to justify the appointment so make sure that you maintain records of the decision making process.

If A has shown strength and commitment through the internship then I would go for A over the person who's never had a job.

Agreed. Regardless of the other factors you’ve mentioned, experience within your industry (provided they’ve done well at the internship) is very valuable. Obviously it depends how good their scores were, if A’s scores were good in isolation, just not as good as B’s then fine, but if A’s scores were actually bad then maybe not. Similarly for personality fit, if A would be a good fit but B would be better, that’s different to A actually being a bad fit.

Why would you employ someone who you see as a worse fit for the culture of the company? It might be disastrous for both of you.

If you had said the candidates were very close, but B just pipped A but you felt A was a better fit, I'd say go for it.

But B is a stronger candidate and a better personality fit, I'd say take B, and let A find a job at a company more suited to them.

A has relevant experience - did you ask the right questions at interview?
B only has predicted grades, so that’s a good indicator but that’s all.
Personally I’d focus on what A has learnt or not learnt at working for the competitor in both the actual work and also fitting into a team.
I’d either offer the job to A because they are doing well in the internship (are they expecting their current employer to offer?) or B because they have a good fit for the team. I wouldn’t offer on the basis of their external circumstances as it’s patronising.

Of course you’d be hugely unreasonable - as well you know - and I hope you have only posted this to goad.

Your post makes me feel deeply uncomfortable for A.

This is incredibly patronising

You have a responsibility to your employer, and indeed the applicants, to hire the best candidate for the job. What you're contemplating is an abuse of your position, unethical and makes no logical sense. Frankly, you are not fit to be trusted with any meaningful responsibility if you are seriously considering this.

I think it sounds like A is the better person for the job but the tick box way of scoring them is wrong?

I'd offer it to A, I see university applications similar and those who attend a school which trains them to write an application, look better on paper but are worse IRL. Knowing how to play the system isn't a sign of being better for the job.

I would hire A not for any virtuous reasons but because they have already proved they are capable of getting up every morning, going to work and holding onto a job. B might have higher test results (but is that surprising considering he's had better opportunities available to him than A) but has no job track record. That would be enough for me.

You go for the best candidate overall. You must not have a HR department, ours is hot on ensuring no bias and that the best candidate is hired.

Many companies use tools to counteract the bias in educational results afforded by parental wealth. As well they should

The "best" candidate is often the one that is most like us. That's why white men hire white men.