Authors: Elena Ayala-Hurtado (Princeton University) and Laura Adler (Yale University)

Title: A Little Help from My Friends? Navigating the Tension Between Social Capital and Meritocracy in the Job Search

Journal: Administrative Science Quarterly

It is not uncommon for job seekers to rely on help from their social circles during an employment search, including to obtain knowledge about opportunities, get referrals, and even exert influence over hiring. Yet leveraging connections during the job search is at odds with another widespread belief: that hiring should be based on candidates’ merit rather than their connections.

How do people justify using connections in the job search, in light of these conflicting beliefs? Elena Ayala-Hurtado, a postdoctoral research associate with Princeton SPIA’s Center for Research on Child and Family Wellbeing, and Laura Adler, an assistant professor at Yale School of Management, together developed a new theory of justification based on 56 interviews with young Spanish college graduates experiencing a difficult labor market, then tested this theory with a survey experiment featuring 1,536 young Spaniards.

In interviews, the researchers found that respondents expressed pervasive concern about how using connections might violate the principle of meritocracy, but also almost universally accepted the use of connections to gain advantages under certain circumstances.

“We theorized a process of justification called situational alignment, where respondents reconciled these conflicting beliefs,” the researchers said.

To determine whether using connections was legitimate in a specific job-seeking situation, respondents assessed the alignment between the job seeker, the job, and the type of help their connections provided. For example, the researchers showed that alignment occurred when the job seeker in the situation had the qualifications that matched the job in question, and when the help provided left the evaluation process in place, such as when a candidate participated in an interview. Under these circumstances, respondents believed that the requirements of both social capital and meritocracy were sufficiently fulfilled. When alignment did not occur, such as when a job seeker received assistance to find a job for which they did not have the necessary qualifications, respondents condemned the use of connections as illegitimate.

“We then tested our theory using a vignette experiment in which a job seeker applied for a job, received help from a connection, and was offered the job,” the researchers said. “We randomized 1,536 young Spanish respondents into one of eight conditions, including two job seekers whose qualifications either matched or did not match one of two specific jobs, and two types of help, one that circumvented the interview and one that left it in place. We then asked respondents to evaluate the legitimacy of the hiring situation they read about. The survey findings were consistent with the theory.”

The study advances the understanding of both meritocracy and social capital by identifying a novel process of justification in the job search through which the two conflicting beliefs are reconciled: situational alignment. This justification process allows people to embrace the prescription of social capital to use connections while also upholding the meritocratic principle that jobs be awarded based on qualifications.

“The study also shows how situational alignment can legitimize inequality in the job search,” the researchers said. “We showed that people were more lenient when discussing their own job-seeking situations and those of their close ties, compared to those of more distant others. As extensive research has shown, people with more privileged upbringings have access to more valuable social capital through their networks. Thus, although people from all class backgrounds used similar strategies to justify the unearned advantages they received from connections, these justifications legitimized very different outcomes. As a process of justification, situational alignment does not create these inequalities, but it provides a sheen of meritocracy to a deeply unequal labor market.”