Note: I don’t mean this as a rhetorical trap, because I understand how futile such devices are. I’m truly interested in the responses, and those pro-AA are welcome to answer too. I would supply my own answer, but I’m asking in part because I don’t know what it would be.
You’re the boss of Foobar Inc. Your HR folks need to fill a slot, and they’ve passed the decision your way. Two applicants with identically impressive resumes, both of whom scored equally well on their interviews and so on, wish to work for you.
You’ve been given their information, and find yourself unable to rank one superior to the other as a potential employee. You only know one difference: one of the applicants is named Smith, and you have 45 Smiths in the company already; the other is named Jones, and you don’t have any Joneses at all.
If it were me, and the potential new hires were rated that equally, it would come down to personal interviews, asking relevant, telling questions and basing my decision solely off that. What else do you have to go by? Adding another employee of the same name (and I’m assuming you mean race) shouldn’t matter, especially if they are both determined to be exactly equally qualified.
I’m not sure I’m 100% against affirmative action, I tend to think things are shades of grey rather than black and white, but I suppose since I’m against hiring someone based only on skin color or some other unimportant and uncontrollable thing like that, I could say I’m against it. So -
Call them both in for another interview and choose the one that seems to have a personality most likely to fit in with the department.
If I can’t get another interview, and/or all other variables are identical, I’d suspect one or both of them of falsifying their resume. Both went to the same school? Both graduated with the same GPA? Both worked at the same companies for the same amount of time? Both born and raised in the same town?
If not - I’d hire the one that either went to a school I like, worked for a company I respect, lived longer in the area, had hobbies I can relate to, was married with kids, wore a masonic symbol, or something. There’s gotta be a difference besides their name. I wouldn’t hire one just because of the name.
Certainly not by basing my decision on their last name. In the case you’ve described, where interviews have been done and their qualifications are identical, I would bring both back in for further interviewing. Since I already know their professional qualifications, I would focus the interview on determining personality-type things-- how well will each candidate get along with the other staff? How motivated does each seem about the position? How many other companies have you applied with/are interviewing with? Just general “get to know you” kinds of questions. I’d probably throw in some other “business needs” questions; does either candidate anticipate needing specific time off in the coming year? When, and for how long? Is there any potential for conflicts of interest; perhaps a spouse working for a rival?
If you tighten your criteria a bit and absolutely refuse to allow me to further interview the candidates, I’d have to choose something a bit more arbitrary but (IMHO) fair. Say for example, you’re just throwing both folders down on my desk and saying “you have 1 minute to pick one.” Everything else being identical (unlikely, but hey, it’s your hypothetical), I think I’d go with “whichever one applied first.”
If they really do have absolutely no significant, relevant differences, then, well, I’d be happy to flip a coin, and no one could reasonably hold it against me.
I’d get them to fight each other in the carpark at lunchtime so as to provide some entertainment for the staff and then when the fight had a winner and a loser I’d hire the loser just to mess with their minds.
But – were it true that people named “Jones” had been discriminated against in the past (or were still discriminated against contemporaneously), (ETA) based only on the fact of their name, then I’d hire Jones.
I think being unable to find any advantage of one over the other even after speaking further with them, seeking further recommendations, having other employees meet them, and so forth, is implausible. But to answer such an implausible hypothetical, I think I’d prefer a coin toss to any strategy based on name.
I’ve heard this joke before. The answer is easy: You hire the one with the bigger tits!
Seriously, though, I’ve never bought into this “two identical applicants” hypothetical. I’ve done a lot of hiring in my lifetime. A LOT. And I’ve never had a situation where there were two identical applicants. People are different, and that’s a fact.
I’m not asking you or anyone to “buy” it as realistic. It’s an ethical hypothetical for the purposes of discussion. I’m not looking for a particular answer, and I don’t yet know what mine would be. I do know that flipping a coin doesn’t seem like the right solution. Also, I tried to note in the OP that the candidates aren’t identical but are identically qualified, which doesn’t seem so impossible to me.
The scenario as written suggest a high number of Smiths relative to Jones. Two possible reasons for this observation: 1) a pattern of pro-Smith nepotism (discrimination) and/or 2) a high number of Smiths among the population of people applying for jobs at Foobar relative to Jones. The latter reason could be because there are so few Jones in the population period. Or it could be that Jones are less likely to go into work related to Foobar’s mission, for various reasons (including #1).
Regardless of which reason is at work, I would probably lean towards hiring Jones. Companies benefit from diversity in the long-run, I believe, because 9 times out 10, their customer base is diverse. Of course, more information is needed to really come up with a firm answer to this question.
Anyway, if they are not “identical”, then you can find a reason why one is better suited. Maybe you hire the less qualified one if the other is overqualified for the job and might get bored doing it. I’ve made that hiring decision before.
I’m with John on this one…I’ve NEVER seen two applicants that came out exactly equal in resume, experience AND in the personal AND professional interviews. There is always some distinguishing difference that makes one candidate more suited than another. Sometimes it simply comes down to personality…who did the interviewers LIKE more? Who did they think would fit in with the team better?
If there ever was a situation where two snow flakes really were identical then I suppose I would flip a coin as well…or, if the budget allowed hire them both and expand the contract (I’ve actually done this in the past). If one really talented and exceptional applicant is good, two can be better. Or I’d pass the second resume along to the corporate office for further review (assuming the theoretical company I’m working for in the OP’s scenario is a big company).
These kinds of unrealistic scenarios however don’t really illustrate anything. Simply put they ARE a trap…the OP is trying for a ‘gotcha!’ moment. Will posters pick a ‘Smith’ (a not so veiled reference to The White Guy™) or a ‘Jones’ (an equally pitiful reference to The Black/Hispanic/Asian/Martian Guy/Girl/TransGender™)?
If they really were equal then I think most people would flip a coin. Of course, no two snow flakes ever really ARE equal…and no two applicants are either.
I think the better question is why would flipping a coin be the best solution.
I can come up with a valid reason for hiring Jones over Smith: “Diversity is good.” You can agree or disagree with this reason, but at least I’m making a decision based a positive objective.
What’s flipping a coin gonna get you? Randomness? How is randomness good?
Well, why wasn’t ‘diversity’ one of the criteria used during the selection then? If ‘diversity’ is desired, then it WOULD be one of the selection criteria…and then the candidates wouldn’t be equal, would they?
If the candidates really ARE dead equal in every respect why not leave it to chance if you can only hire one? If there are other criteria that are important (such as your assertion about diversity) then they aren’t equal.