The duty to hire on merit: mapping the terrain Flashcards
There are four main cadidate centered arguments:
hard work
respect
Freedom of association
Prior commitments
Hard work argument
One argument for the duty to appoint the most qualified says that those who have worked hart to attain their superior qualifications deserve to be rewarded for it by being appointed to the social positions they seek and thus gaining access to the benefits associated with those positions. nonetheless the most qualified canditate for a job wil more often than not find herself in that position.
at best hte hard work argument supports a weak presumption in favor of meritocratic hiring; one that is defeated wherever a less qualified candidate is reasonably judged to have exerted more effort. At worst the argument fails to establish a general presumption for meritocracy
The duty to appoint the most qualified must be suspended whenever there is reason to believe that a less qualified applicant tried harder
This relies on two premises
hard work deserves to be rewarded
it is the responsibility of emplyoers to reward the hard working through their hiring practices
Respect argument
The duty to appoint the most qualified can be derived from the imperative to show respect for persons. WHere jobs are awareded based on need, or familiy ties, or class membership or some immutable personal characteristic, candidates are treated as “mere bearers of needs or claims, as passive links in causal chains, or as interchangeable specimens of larger groups.” on the other hand, when selection decisions are determined by qualifications, which serve as indicators or predictors of future performance, the candidates are treated first adn foremost “as agents whose purposeful acts are capable of making a difference in the world”
Freedom of association argument
Employers and organizations have the right to associate freely, which includes making hiring decisions based on factors beyond just qualifications. This could involve considerations like cultural fit, shared values, or other subjective criteria that the organization deems important. This right allows employers to exclude candidates who may be highly qualified but do not align with other aspects valued by the organization
Several problems with the freedom of association argument
It is not clear that protecting the puspose of an institution necessitates appointment of the very best cadidate, as opposed to any sufficiently qualified candidate.
The “purpose” of an institution is not always clear-cut or unanimously agreed upon.
This approach has the resources to explain why organizations must hire on merit. But unless the “purpose” of any given organization can be objectively defined, just about anything can count as “merit”, or constitute a “qualification”
Prior commitments argument
Individuals applying for jobs with some organizations are led to believe that they will be judged purley on their merits. The organizations have made an explicit commitment to this effect. However, commitments whose fulfilment would violate some more basic moral requirement are not binding
For a candidtae the be entitled to a job based on X, it is not sufficient that he is led to believe that the job will be awareded based on X. it is also necessary that X-based seleciton is itself morally justified, or consistent with pre-existing moral duties
The scope of the prior commitment argument is doubly limited
1) It only applies to organizations that have made a commitment - either explicity or implicity - to hire on merit
2) Even within these organizations the commitment is only binding in cases where hiring on merit is consistent with more fundamental moral duties
Three main stakeholder centered arguments
Utilitarianism
Fiduciary duties
The difference principle
Utilitarianism argument (stakeholder centered arguments)
Is the simplest of the stakeholder-centered arguments It relies on two key premises:
There is some important value or good, X, which is maximized when selectors appoint the most qualified
Individuals have a dutry to produce as much X as they reasonably can. Therefore selectors must hire on merit lest they default on the moral requirement to maximize X.
The most promising answer for that X is, material well being
Hiring on qualifications makes an efficient use of the talents and abilities that society has available, maximizing aggregate social product. Furthermore, awarding jobs on merit gives individuals a powerful incentive to cultivate those capacities that would enable them to contribute productively to their economy. Hence merit-based hiring looks like a sound strategy for maximizing productivity and, in turn, material well being
Problems with the utilitarian argument
There is ample research suggesting that individuals are more likely to cultivate their talents and strive for excellence when they can see that other people like them occupy desirable social positions (role model effect). In light of this the best way to maximize productivity and aggregate social product may involve deviating from merit based hiring from time to time, in order to ensure that a sufficient supply of role models from different social and cultural groups remains in circulation
The second problem with the utilitarian argument reveals itself when we turn our attention to the second, normative premise. The idea that individuals ahve a duty to maximize material affluence is dubious even if one subscribes to a utilitarian moral framework
According to one variety of non classical utilitariansism, the “X” that morality demands we maximize is not happiness, but the satisfaction of preferences. Perhaps this could salvage the utilitarian argument. We start with the premise that awarding jobs to those best qualified maximizes productivity and makes us wealthier. Plausibly, the wealthier we are the more preferences we can satisfy. Therefore, plausibly, hiring on merit maximizes the satisfaction of preferences
Fiduciary duties argument (stakeholder centered argument)
Those charged with personnel selection decisions are simply ag ents or representatives of their organization. They have authority, responsibilities and resources that should soley be used for the advancement of the organization they serve. Since the best qualified candidate for a job is, by definition, that one that is expected to perform its associated tasks most successfully, and to thereby make the greatest contribution to the organization, it is the selectors fiduciary duty to appoint this person. Intentionally hiring any less-qualified contender is a misuse (or abuse) of power, a misappropriation of resources, and a breach of trust
Problem with fiduciary duties approach
Involves specifying what the “best interests” of an organization are
A second issue with the argument is its blanket assumption that the most qualified candidate- the person expected to do the job better than anyone else - is always the person whose appointment is in the best interests of the organization
Thirdly, even in those cases where appointing the most qualified applicat would be in the best interests of the organization all things considered, it is not clear that selectors will always have an all things considered fiduciary duty to make said appointment
The differences principle
That principle states that social inequalities are acceptable insofar as they are necessary for the provision of the maximum resources possible to be least advantaged. Hiring on merit, does just that. A society in which jobs are awarded to those best qualified for them has the best chance of ensuring that “those who lack the ability to succeed in the labor market can be given the resources necessary for the meeting of their basic needs; or … so that htey can have as many resources as possible to devote to their life plans
Nevertheless, DP concerns itself not just with the distribution of material resources, but with the distribution of “primary goods” more generally. These are things taht every rational man is presumed to want they are “all purpose means” that are generally necessary for a flourishing life
