The prestige trap: How institutional bias distorts job markets

As a perfume enthusiast, I often find myself lost in a sea of fragrances, trying to decipher the subtle differences between bottles that look and smell almost the same. 

One afternoon, while browsing a perfume store in Banani, I was handed a simple 50mL bottle by a salesperson who noticed my indecision. With a knowing smile, he said, "Sir, this is a limited edition. A must try!"

To my surprise, the perfume didn't feel remarkably different from another, more affordable alternative I had just sampled. Yet, moments later, another customer excitedly bought it, telling her friend, "The limited edition is so unique!"

The phrase "limited edition" is a powerful marketing tactic, one that has infiltrated far more than just the luxury retail space. It now influences a wide variety of consumer decisions, many of which are built on nothing more than clever positioning. 

Before diving into its implications in less obvious sectors, let's first demystify the tactic itself.

Limited edition or limited truth?

When elite brands release limited edition products, like Rolls Royce producing a select number of luxury vehicles, they do so genuinely. These companies do not intend to mass-produce those items again, even if demand remains high. For such premium brands, scarcity adds value and reinforces prestige.

However, this authenticity begins to blur when mainstream or even mid-tier brands use the same label. In many cases, the "limited edition" tag is nothing more than a marketing illusion.

So why do we fall for it?

The answer may lie in our evolutionary psychology. Human beings are hardwired to seek distinction to stand out. In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, this drive is captured by the "esteem" level: the desire for recognition, respect, and status. This is why, in social gatherings, people avoid wearing the same outfit as others. We want to be unique. And marketers know this. "Limited edition" becomes a subtle nod to our need for exclusivity.

HR and the 'limited edition' mindset

While we can understand this psychology in the context of consumer goods, what's often overlooked is how the "limited edition" concept has silently crept into human resources and recruitment, particularly in South Asia.

A professor once illustrated how perceptions form through a simple classroom experiment. He showed two identical circles: one red and one blue, and asked students to raise their hands for whichever they thought was larger. Predictably, the class split in half. Despite both circles being the same size, people were convinced of their choice because they were directed toward it.

The professor explained the relationship: From belief forms norm, from norm forms culture. 

When a smaller group forms a belief and a larger group gets influenced by this belief it forms a norm. Norms practiced over a prolonged period develops culture.

In HR, a similar pattern emerges. The media often reports that fresh graduates struggle to find jobs due to a lack of skills. While this may be partially true, it fails to capture a deeper, more troubling phenomenon: the "limited edition" illusion applied to candidates.

A year ago, we conducted a study on graduate hiring trends in Bangladesh. We found that fresh graduates overwhelmingly prefer multinational corporations (MNCs), especially for prestigious 'Management Trainee' roles. 

Yet, when we looked closely at the hiring patterns of 10 MNCs and 14 prominent local firms over the past three years, an alarming trend surfaced: most of the top-paying, entry-level roles were filled by graduates from just three institutions—primarily IBA.

This might seem reasonable at first, given IBA's rigorous selection process and reputation. But our deeper analysis showed something else: while IBA graduates are undoubtedly competent, many candidates from lesser-known institutions often demonstrated stronger practical skills.

So why were they being overlooked?

The answer again lies in perception, HR's own version of "limited edition." IBA's 2% acceptance rate and tightly controlled intake have created a perception of rarity, prestige, and guaranteed quality. Despite the capability to expand its cohort, IBA has chosen to remain small, thus maintaining high demand in the job market.

Breaking the bias

To test this theory, we anonymised 100 CVs from graduates across 18 different institutions and presented them to both current and retired HR professionals from reputed firms. The names of institutions were hidden to eliminate bias.

Shockingly, 56% of the CVs that were previously rejected were now shortlisted for the next round.

In the final stage, we invited 12 candidates to interview for three roles—one in business, one in engineering, and one in legal services. The interviewers had no access to any institutional identifiers. At the end of the process, only one of the selected candidates came from a traditionally preferred institution. The other two were from universities usually ignored by recruiters.

A 66% shift in decision-making—simply by removing institutional bias.

This revelation kept me awake at night. Yes, skills are important. And yes, many graduates do lack the readiness employers seek. But the uncomfortable truth is that many skilled candidates are denied opportunities because of a system that prioritises perceived prestige over actual potential.

In the name of being "equal opportunity providers," are we truly practising what we preach?

The concept of "limited edition" has its place in luxury marketing, but when it begins to shape recruitment decisions, when it subtly excludes deserving candidates, it becomes a dangerous illusion. One that needs to be unmasked, discussed, and dismantled.

Let's move beyond labels. Let's start judging by merit, not just by market perception.