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?

B will have more employment opportunities available to them, even without any work experience.

A will struggle, even with his internship experience.

Go with A.

It's not just about grades, or about background, it's about personality and what they can bring to the role.

A seems determined to better his circumstances and has done 9 months in an internship which shows hard work, motivation etc.

On the basis that you said B is the best candidate, I would hire B.

Positive discrimination in recruitment is only legal in the UK where it is a tie-breaker for two (or more) equally good candidates.

Maybe neither is the right candidate OP and you need to re-advertise.

Have you considered that?

How much notice of the assessment centre results do you normally take and does that usually translate into a good employee?

Candidate A has relevant experience which has to count for something. I can see that there would be reasons for hiring candidate A over candidate B that wouldn't include feeling the need to account for their perceived disadvantages.

What do you mean by a 'better fit' personality wise. I would be concerned that could trip over into discrimination, especially if your workplace is staffed by confident white men, and this describes candidate B, whereas Candidate A is a quiet Indian woman for example.

You hire the best person for the job. What's the point in tests / assessments when you ignore them and offer someone else the job becuuase you essentially feel sorry for them or at least that's how it comes across.

A could come out of his internship and with a year behind them get a great apprenticeship.

They are not equally good, you have said B is best fit and scored better.

Do as you feel is correct. All this "pick the best person and don't show bias"

You'd be showing bias if you chose the middle class kid.

We are cutting back on A LOT to afford private education for the children, including working long hours and living in a modest ex-council house. All of this is done precisely to get them most prepared for the working life ahead.

I would be properly peed off if a potential recruiter decided that my children were too privileged and therefore could afford to be sidelined at an interview.

I don't know the answer, but I'm intrigued as to how the OP knows so much about their family backgrounds and living circumstances.

Hire the best person for the job. Obviously.

I'd pick the working class kid every time.

It's not patronising, it's giving a hand up.

I say this as someone from a shite background, I always try to help those from similar circumstances.

If half the cabinet can all magically have gone to Eton, I too, can help those who came from the same circumstances as me.

It's the way the world works but the white middle classes aren't so into it when it's against their interests, I see.

Part of the reasoning of best fit could be the ability to overcome obstacles, perseverance and motivation. Has your tick box exercise taken these into account?

If there wasn’t that much difference in outcome I’d go for A. I wouldn’t mention this to the candidates though!

"We are cutting back on A LOT to afford private education for the children, including working long hours and living in a modest ex-council house. All of this is done precisely to get them most prepared for the working life ahead."

You honestly think that's fair? You came on here thinking that put you in the right?

Basically you're saying "I'm buying my child privilege" and you think everyone will say "how wonderful of you."

What utter bullshit.

“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.”

It’s no different to any other positive discrimination ie all female shortlists

I’d hire B on personality alone if it’s a clear better fit. You can learn skills, you can’t necessarily learn a better personality and that can make or break a team.

rson?55Show OP
Today 11:23 junglesepa

Also, equal opportunities means it's not in the slightest abnormal to know this facts about the candidate!!!

Equal opportunities legislation absolutely does NOT tell you information such as whether a candidate’s parents were encouraging or not. And even if a candidate volunteered that information you’d have no cast iron way of proving it.

reading this thread makes me hope to god some posters aren’t in the position of recruiting. They know jack shit about equal opportunities.

Bottom line is- the OP says candidate B is the better candidate. Not just because of grades or one specific thing. Overall better
The OP then asks if it would be unreasonable to offer the post to A simply because the opportunity may be ‘more transformative.’ (I quote the OP there)

The answer is quite simply- yes, on the information given, it would be very wrong to not offer the job to B. Besides, you can’t possibly predict how transformative the experience might be for B anyway. You don’t base your decision on some well meaning but misguided notion of what you think they might get out of it

My working class kids went to private school because their working class father worked 7 days a week for years to pay to give his children the best opportunities he could. Not everyone who goes to private school is middle class.

It’s no different to any other positive discrimination ie all female shortlists

Well those are legal, so yes it is different.

I've worked in an environment where a person picked for a job was picked because they ensured the company complied with a BME target. That person has caused no end of problems accusing coworkers of racism when things don't go their way.

Pick the best person for the job. It's easier to prove that's the reason if challenged.

a levels mean nothing, i'd hire the one with experience which would be A.

Just hire the best candidate.

A has an internship so will probably find work more easily I would have thought, though I would have thought he/she would be better qualified too due to the work experience.

If B seemed better, even without the work experience, I would take him/her on.

"My working class kids went to private school because their working class father worked 7 days a week for years to pay to give his children the best opportunities he could."

Bully for them. Loads of us don't have that opportunity.

Buying privilege should be illegal in a civilised society, I loathe it.

The popular term is positive discrimination.

I don’t think there’s anything positive about it. Discrimination is discrimination.

You have taken things at face value and made a judgement.

I would hire A

“ILoveEurovision

It’s no different to any other positive discrimination ie all female shortlists

Well those are legal, so yes it is different.”

You have to decide who you want to have the job. It’s not usual to go on assembly centre results alone- otherwise you wouldn’t bother with face to face interviews.
My reading of the Op is that there really isn’t much in it. I often have to chose between 2 candidates, both of whom could do the job well. Something tips the balance, whether that’s a gut feeling, personality preference, or yes, team mix. I have a large team that’s overwhemingly one sex. That’s not ideal, and when I recruit I hope for a successful final candidate of the opposite sex. That could easily tip the balance for me.