An argument for not hiring "the best"

Unusual title, eh? Well, it's not about downgrading standards: what I am saying is that, of those candidates who meet the actual, real requirements for a job, there is a valid argument for not trying to arbitrarily find "the best" person and hiring them.

First, let's consider what happens when you find "the best" of the compliant candidates and hire them:

1. there is a profound risk that you - or, even worse, your sub-contracted hire company - have resorted to a classification system that has NOTHING to do with the job, and thus you are deluding yourself that you have found the best in the context of that job (this is the myth of meritocracy writ large, albeit it in another context - I sometimes think drawing random lots would be better than some of the desperate scenarios I've seen); 
2. you are likely to wind up with someone aggressive, who may not fit the culture of the organisation and thus will damage both the resources of the company (i.e., people), and the culture (another resource) of the company, both of which are breaches of the duty to be a steward of the company's resources; 
3. the person you hire may well be ambitious, and thus is likely to move on; and 
4. you are quite possibly contributing to problems such as the loss of self esteem and other harm that can hap pen to long term unemployed, and, as a result of that, the harm that is done to society.

On the second point, I recall a manager some years ago (long gone from the company now, thank the Goddess) who didn't care about his group becoming smaller and thus having a greatly reduced turnover, provided it was profitable. His view was that a small group making a small number but big % profit was better than a larger group making a larger actual profit, but lower percentage. His team had, however, the critical number of people required to keep generating business, most of them were dedicated to his philosophy and followed him from company to company, and he had some otherwise excellent ideas (I still use his way of presenting a project methodology), but, ultimately, that wasn't what the powers that be wanted, so he and his band moved on.

(I also like the idea of having the top candidate or two meet the people they will be working with, to assess their fit to the culture - something I learned from a very good manager who also, sadly, moved elsewhere.)

So, what is the alternative? Well, how about hiring, out of those above the genuine minimum requirement, the person who most deserves a break? Maybe someone who has been unemployed for longest, maybe someone who has worked hardest to get to this point, or - and here is where I get even more radical - someone who fits the profile of whatever minority group you are seeking to increase the numbers of?

I argue (with a certain amount of diffidence, to be true) that this is NOT affirmative action, as you are hiring someone who fits the criteria - there is no relaxation of standards (provided you were genuine in what you defined - and that you were precise and relevant, which is where many companies need to improve). Nevertheless, it provides the benefits of affirmative action, and maybe some other benefits.

What are those other benefits?

Well, quite possibly:

1. you are likely to get a candidate who is grateful, and thus more likely to be better motivated, and more likely to stick around; 
2. you will more probably get someone who understands suffering, and thus (a) is a better fit to your company's human resources, and (b) who, through their own experience, is able to help the people in the company cope with rough times; and
3. you are creating a positive impact on society, which is corporate social responsibility writ large.

Of course, there are a number of ways of going about that actual selection. Back in the 80s I was appointed librarian by the company I worked for at the time, and quickly worked out we needed someone who knew about inter-library loans, etc. (As an engineer, we were actually better at classifying books etc than the professional librarians we hired later - and a note to the librarian world: specialist libraries need a more specific system of key words than the industry wide standard.) Our first hire - set by someone who was the best engineer I ever worked, despite "only" having a diploma, not a degree, but who turned out to be transphobic - was based on deliberately advertising for a woman who was returning to the workforce.

These days, I'm sure the reactionaries would howl in protest if such a thing was done, but I am saying that there is an argument for choosing from the pool of satisfactory candidates in a way that better benefits the requirements of stewardship of company resources and the requirements of corporate social responsibility. Hiring from a minority group is one such goal, but also being aware of factors such as a mix of old and young, or the benefits to society of taking on someone who has been unemployed for a while or had some other problem, is well worth while.

Hopefully, food for thought.