I suspect most of us accept that the world isn’t a particularly fair place. Recent research from the University at Buffalo-State University of New York suggests that this general feeling of unfairness is universal, especially when we consider the likelihood of merit-based hiring.
This is interesting, as previously there have been strong suggestions that conservatives are more likely to believe in the concept of merit in life and that we get where we are largely due to our own efforts, whereas liberals are more inclined to accept the impact of inequality and socioeconomic disparities that limit the chances of poorer members of society to give their best.
Believing in fairness
The researchers found that while this general heuristic can hold true, both liberals and conservatives were more likely to think that merit-based hiring wasn’t particularly fair when they learned more about the real impact of socioeconomic disparities.
Similarly, both liberals and conservatives were more inclined to back specific programs that are designed to encourage socioeconomic diversity in the workplace after they better understood how social class and low incomes affect people.
“Socioeconomic disadvantages early in life can undermine educational achievement, test scores and work experiences,” the researchers explain. “In this way, inequality can undermine equal opportunity.”
Ignoring the context
When they dived into the supposed fairness of the kind of merit-based processes we often see at work, however, this broader context and appreciation for inequality and its consequences is often missing.
The findings emerged after the researchers conducted five experiments featuring over 3,300 volunteers. They were tasked with reading about either a hiring or promotion process in the workplace, both of which were defined as being heavily merit-based, with the successful candidate regarded as the most qualified.
For half of the volunteers, they only received what a typical recruitment manager might receive, with basic biographical and career data given about each candidate. The other half, however, also received information about the socioeconomic disadvantages or advantages the respective candidates had experienced in their lives.
The results show that the volunteers who received this additional background information typically viewed the merit-based recruitment process as less fair than their peers who didn’t receive this information. What’s more, this perception was consistent among both conservative and liberal volunteers.
This was reinforced in subsequent experiments where a similar conclusion was reached after the volunteers learned about how income inequality can affect both one’s educational opportunities and subsequent career advancement.
Leveling the playing field
A final experiment suggested that people would be quite happy for hiring processes to be changed to make the playing field more equal and that bit fairer once they’d learned about the impact social inequality has on people’s careers.
For instance, this could involve removing the names of any prestigious universities or former employers from the resumes of candidates, or even ensuring that internships aren’t a significant factor in the recruitment process.
While the study didn’t specifically cover racial inequality, the researchers point out that previous studies have focused on that and came to a similar conclusion. It seems that once we’re aware of the impact inequality has it can lead to changes in our perceptions and behaviors.
Addressing polarization
Suffice it to say, the findings are probably insufficient in and of themselves to overcome the polarization that still plagues this debate. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled to limit any attempts to introduce affirmative action in college admissions, with the ruling generally supported by conservatives who prefer a more merit-based approach to selection.
It’s probably fair to say that programs to improve diversity and tackle socioeconomic inequalities in the workplace haven’t attracted the same level of attention, but this is perhaps only a matter of time before that which has flown under the radar to date becomes part of the wider cultural agenda.
“Members of marginalized racial groups tend to experience socioeconomic disadvantages more often than members of privileged racial groups, and the negative consequences of these disadvantages can be even worse for racial minorities,” the researchers explain. “Focusing on socioeconomic considerations could garner more support and still help address racial inequality.”
In the meantime, it’s perhaps a good thing if hiring managers become more aware of both the presence of socioeconomic inequality and its consequences in terms of the access to the kind of opportunities that are so often highly valued in the recruitment process. This can help to ensure that the evaluation of candidates is fairer and less biased towards those who are better off.
