> The job of a recruiter is to find the best candidate for the job, not to treat all candidates equally.
I won't disagree, but I would like to restate that a little more carefully:
"The job of a recruiter is to measure which candidate is best for this job, fairly and without bias."
As you point out, there are quite a few reasons that people try to weedle out of actually hiring the best person, some of them not so savory (subconscious preference for white, male people - but it depends on the company, and the culture). It should be hard, but not impossible, to override the default procedure - and for exceptional cases only.
Certainly, in the Article, the flawed psychometric test should not have been grounds to reject the best-performing candidate in the room. But similarly, personality (or appearance) should also not be a reason to promote someone over their ability to do the job.
I won't disagree, but I would like to restate that a little more carefully:
"The job of a recruiter is to measure which candidate is best for this job, fairly and without bias."
As you point out, there are quite a few reasons that people try to weedle out of actually hiring the best person, some of them not so savory (subconscious preference for white, male people - but it depends on the company, and the culture). It should be hard, but not impossible, to override the default procedure - and for exceptional cases only.
Certainly, in the Article, the flawed psychometric test should not have been grounds to reject the best-performing candidate in the room. But similarly, personality (or appearance) should also not be a reason to promote someone over their ability to do the job.