I’d hire the one with tiny wings that would allow them to fly about the room and land on my paper weight.
In other words, in 25 years of interviewing and hiring hundreds, if not thousands, of people I have never found 2 applicants exactly the same.
And for the ten billionth time, they’re not exactly the same. Have you never had a problem deciding between two equally qualified candidates?
My, my that’s a case of protesting too much.
I’m not dead set against affirmative action, but I’ll take a shot at answering your question.
I would take whoever would have the shorter commute. (Or does that go against the spirit of the question? Should I assume that their commutes are exactly the same?)
Nope, that’s fine, and I find it to be a reasonable (and clever) answer. Commute distance could effect all kinds of things – maybe you’re a green type, maybe you need to make sure they’re close by. I welcome this kind of answer which looks outside the scope of qualifications; it certainly seems better than just random chance.
Out of curiosity, would you also look into the Jones discrepancy in the company? This is quite different from AA in that nobody is mandating your response, of course. (And I’m honestly not trying to set up some kind of trap whereby you admit you secretly love AA and want to marry it. I know this kind of hypotheticalizing is not at all useful as a rhetorical tool in that way. I’m trying to understand a mentality which I don’t think I have enough of a grasp on to form an opinion about yet).
The fact that people are taking this seriously amazes me.
What does last names tell us about anything? One of the whitest white boys I’ve ever met has the last name Sanchez. Based solely on your question, he’d get the job because he’s Hispanic and you want to diversify even though the only Hispanic thing about him is his last name.
I used last names precisely because they don’t come with baggage that might get in the way of the discussion. Obviously I’m not suggesting there’s any real problem with companies hiring too many people with the last name. I could have just as easily said Smiths were people who always wear hats and Joneses were people who always wear sunglasses.
That the discrepancy arises concerning an apparently arbitrary trait is all that matters for the purposes of the question. The point of which is that, all other things being equal, one would not expect a statistical surplus on Smiths entirely because there’s no obvious, rational reason we’re hiring so many Smiths. Smiths and Joneses can both make equally good employees regardless of their names, so it becomes potentially useful to question why we’re only hiring Smiths.
But the hypothetical is so utterly pointless, so why even ask it.
As you said, names mean nothing, so why not use an example that actually means something? Yes, you’ve avoided the baggage of race or gender, but you’ve also made a question that can’t be answered intelligently by anyone.
In this situation, flipping a coin is the only rational answer as you’ve set up everything else to be equal.
I don’t really have to repeat the thing about them not being identical yet again, do I? Just read the thread. Hell, someone has already come up with a better solution than coin-flipping (which for the love of god is clearly the opposite of ‘rational’, that is, something which involves a process of reasoning).
If you choose someone based on “shorter commute” then they’re not equal are they? There could be some business reason behind choosing the guy with the shorter commute, say the shorter drive makes him more alert for the job because he gets to sleep later.
Or you’re choosing the guy with the shorter commute because you’re trying to be nice to him, at which point it makes about as much sense as flipping a coin.
Okay. Thirty billionth time.
They’re not meant to be identical. They’re not identical. They are identically qualified for the job. Their qualifications might be different – just equally impressive. Got it?
But if anything about them is different (like with the distance of the commute), one becomes more qualified (or impressive) than the other and your whole hypothetical falls apart.
Do you honestly not understand how someone can find fault with this question?
And why was the person who’s picking the winner not involved with the interview process before the decision. Because if the picker was the interviewer, then the two applicants CANNOT be equally impressive and they CANNOT be blank canvases with only last names. Race, gender, conversation skills, cleanliness, sense of dress and other things begin to matter.
I understand the fault you’re finding, but it’s not with the question I was trying to ask, Justin. The premise is that these potential employees match up on all the things measured in the interview process – experience, personality, hygiene, etc. I suppose some jobs might have distance of commute in the description, but I assumed this one doesn’t and that this, therefore, is looking outside the bounds of the professional requirements for the answer.
Within those bounds, the candidates are the same, but things like, say, their favorite colors are not. “Favorite color” generally has nothing to do with qualifications, so if you are going to base your decision on that, you’ve moved outside the area of similarity covered by this hypothetical, so you’re not violating its rules/invalidating its premise in doing so.
The question becomes, in that scenario, what traits do you look at, and why? I’m starting to think that my dog in this race isn’t about AA at all, but the idea that a randomly generated answer is preferable to one with /any reasoning at all/ behind it. Frankly, I think it would even be better to start with “I’ll go by favorite color” and /make up/ a reason, but that may just be me.
::: shakes fist:::
Damn you, I came in here to post that.
Getting back to the OP, besides never having seen identical resumes, I have never seen equally qualified applicants.
There is always a difference. I have never had a problem picking up on that difference.
Look for the one that is the best fit.
Okay. I’m happy to accept this as is if you’ll bear with me for some more questions, then?
Let’s say this applied for you in this scenario as well. You review the candidates and find that Smith is clearly the best fit. But in the process, you discover the Jones discrepancy. Do you take any action to find out the cause? Of the possible causes we’ve already outlined – there are only four probable enough to consider – would you find any of them problematic, and if so, what action would you take?
Please believe me that I will accept answers other than “I would institute AA exactly as it is now, of course!” I’m hoping for them, in fact.
I want the best person for the job. I don’t care if that person is white, black, brown, yellow or purple. I don’t care if they are a man or a woman. I don’t care if they are gay or straight.
All I care about is can they handle the mission, and do the job.
So no, I would not even consider why we didn’t have any people named Jones working for us.
Rick
Former manager for SmithCo. Inc. 
Just kidding!
Well, I’m not the person to whom you directed this question, but I imagine the overwhelming majority of those who would reply on this board would be that no, I would not consider the “Jones discrepancy” when hiring. I would select the best suited candidate for the position; be they white, black, male, female, 6’10" or 4’2".
I would be doing a disservice to the company if I hired someone who did not meet the criteria of being the best suited of the available options solely to “fix the Jones discrepancy.”
I’d hire the one with the last name Chevapravatdumrong*, not just any Smith or Jones.
*Yes, that’s a real last name. 10 points whoever can tell me where they’ve seen it before, without Google.
You’re doing that thing where you’re reading political agendas under my scenario I didn’t intend. I admit by choosing my title as I did, I was inviting this. But I also knew there was no disguising the similarity and it was better to acknowledge it.
I find your defensiveness interesting, anyway. The question you’re responding to now assumed that you already hired the best person for the job. Without reservation, I have agreed with Rick that he can tell which of these candidates is best. I am not in any way advocating not hiring the best candidate, as you’ve implied for some bizarre reason.
Oh, no, sorry if it came off that way. I was more replying to your question
So, no. 