Rewarding Equality, While Hoping for Equity: Unintended Consequences of Fair-Minded Hiring Practices

Abstract

How does hiring happen in a meritocratic context? Organizations across sectors are increasingly pursuing policies that restrict evaluators' access to information not related to the job call. Policies ranging from anonymizing application materials to banning criminal background checks in employment decisions seek to improve outcomes for disadvantage groups and reduce perceptions of bias. These policies assume that fair-minded hiring rules will lead to unbiased evaluative judgments, yet existing research offers little guidance on how evaluators make selection decisions in this context. This in-depth mixed-methods dissertation addresses this knowledge gap by observing the hiring practices of two national nonprofit employers over the course of 18 months. Across three essays at the intersection of hiring, evaluation, and inequality, I present a broad inquiry into the topic of well-intentioned hiring practices. The first paper examines how meritocratic notions impact demand-side hiring practices. Drawing on in-depth fieldwork, I show that evaluators achieve qualification consensus, yet their selection preferences diverge by formal position. I generate a three-category typology to capture how evaluators at different levels in the organizational hierarchy make sense of hiring aims and the labor queue. I theorize that differences in how evaluators frame the goals of hiring shape selection rankings and the efficacy of meritocratic hiring practices. In the second paper, I provide evidence of a supply-side burden to fair-minded hiring practices. Hiring practices that prioritize fairness ‘feel’ fair to employers yet can obfuscate differences in cultural knowledge related to the job search. I introduce the role of cultural capital in understanding how job seekers navigate the job search process. The third paper examines the role of third-party job boards in attenuating inequality. Examining the job search outcomes for applicants seeking employment in entry-level roles, I find that Black job seekers overwhelmingly favor online job boards. Yet, despite a general preference for Black workers, firms discount these candidates. The paper contributes to our understanding of how job leads generate advantage and inequality in the labor market. Together, the essays in this dissertation offer contributions on how well-intentioned employers attempt to attenuate inequality in evaluative contexts where public perception and existing research suggest minoritized job seekers and historically disadvantaged groups benefit.