The concept of “fit” has become important for understanding hiring decisions and labor market outcomes. While social scientists have explored how fit functions as a legitimized evaluative criterion to match candidates to jobs in the hiring process, less is known about how fit functions as a hiring tool to aid in decision-making when hiring decisions cannot—or should not—be justified. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 53 hiring professionals, we develop a theoretical argument that hiring professionals can use fit as a tool to circumvent legitimized hiring criteria and justify their hiring goals. Specifically, we show how hiring professionals use fit as a tool to explain their hiring decisions when these decisions cannot or should not be justified and we outline two mechanisms through which this process occurs: (1) fit as a tool for circumventing human capital concerns, and (2) fit as a tool to circumvent hiring policies based upon social characteristics. We argue that fit is more than an evaluative criterion for matching individuals to jobs. Hiring professionals deploy fit as a tool to justify their decisions amid uncertainty and constraint. Fit, then, becomes a placeholder when these hiring decisions are not able to be justified through legitimized means. Our findings reveal some of the potential negative consequences of using fit during the hiring process and contribute important theoretical insights about the role of fit in scholarship on inequality and labor markets.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561
2.
BiernatM. R. (2005). Standards and expectancies: contrast and assimilation in judgements of self and others. Taylor & Francis Group.
3.
BillsD. B. (2003). Credentials, signals, and screens: Explaining the relationship between schooling and job assignment. Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073004441
CableD. M.JudgeT. A. (1997). Interviewer’s perception of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.546
6.
CastillaE. J.LanG. J.RissingB. A. (2013). Social networks and employment: Mechanisms (part 1). Sociology Compass, 7(12), 999–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12095
7.
ChavezK. (2020). Penalized for personality: A case study of Asian-origin disadvantage at the point of hire. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 7(2), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220922270
8.
ChavezK.WeisshaarK.Cabello-HuttT. (2022). Gender and racial discrimination in hiring before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from a field experiment of accountants, 2018–2020. Work and Occupations, 49(3), 275–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884221094539
9.
CorrellS. J.BenardS.PaikI. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1339. https://doi.org/10.1086/511799
10.
Cubiks. (2013). Cubiks international survey on job and cultural fit. Guildford, UK.
11.
DeterdingN. M.WatersM. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377
12.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited : Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
13.
DobbinF.SchrageD.KalevA. (2015). Rage against the iron cage: The varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 1014–1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415596416
14.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.,, & LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed, pp. 357–385). McGraw-Hill.
15.
GallagherS. R. (2018). Educational credentials come of age: A survey on the use and value of educational credentials in hiring. Boston.
16.
JerolmackC.KhanS. (2014). Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(2), 178–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114523396
17.
KalevA.DobbinF.KellyE. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404
18.
KatzL. M. (2015, January 29). Competencies hold the key to better hiring. Society for Human Resource Management.
19.
KelloggK. C.ValentineM. A.ChristinA. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
20.
Kristof-BrownA. L.SeongJ. Y.DegeestD. S.ParkW.-W.HongD.-S. (2014). Collective fit perceptions: A multilevel investigation of person-group fit with individual-level and team-level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 969–989. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1942
21.
LamontM.SwidlerA. (2014). Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology, 37(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-014-9274-z
22.
MattijssenL.PavlopoulosD.SmitsW. (2022). Scarred by your employer? The effect of Employers’ strategies on the career outcomes of non-standard employment. Work and Occupations, 49(3), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884221076383
23.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293
24.
MickeyE. L. (2022). The organization of networking and gender inequality in the new economy: Evidence from the tech industry. Work and Occupations, 49(4), 383–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884221102134
25.
MossP.TillyC. (1996). "Soft” skills and race: An investigation of black men’s employment problems. Work and Occupations, 23(3), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888496023003002
26.
MossP.TillyC. (2001). Stories employers tell: Race, skill, and hiring in America (pp. 43–155). Russell Sage Foundation.
27.
NeckermanK. M.KirschenmanJ. (1991). Hiring strategies, racial bias, and inner-city workers. Social Problems, 38(4), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/800563
28.
NelsonJ. L.JohnsonT. D. (2023). How white workers navigate racial difference in the workplace: Social-emotional processes and the role of workplace racial composition. Work and Occupations, 07308884231176833. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884231176833
29.
NicholsB. J. (2023). Disentangling social class–based inequality: How social position affects evaluations of economic and cultural markers of social class. Sociological Perspectives, 66(4), 665–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/07311214221146597
30.
PagerD.ShepherdH. (2008). The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131740
31.
PagerD.WesternB.BonikowskiB. (2009). Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: A field experiment. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400505
32.
PedullaD. S. (2014). The positive consequences of negative stereotypes: Race, sexual orientation, and the job application process. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272513506229
33.
PedullaD. S. (2020). Making the cut: Hiring decisions, bias, and the consequences of nonstandard, mismatched, and precarious employment. Princeton University Press.
34.
RiveraL. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412463213
van VianenA. E. M. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702
39.
WolfeP. (2019, August 22). Focus on skills to hire and retain top talent. Society for Human Resource Management.
