I oversee a team of individual contributors. For an open role, I had two candidates who were good fits for the role.

• Candidate 1: Worked with our company for close to 5 years. Never took a sick day. Always shows up on time and puts in A effort on everything she does. She helps anyone with anything they need (a ride, money if someone forgot lunch, helps others with work). She’s always seeking to improve her work and is very pleasant to work with. She gets excellent yearly reviews because she works so hard. She’s adored by all her colleagues.

• Candidate 2: Worked with our company for nine months. She doesn’t necessarily put in the same effort as candidate 1 but she gets it because she’s smart and a fast learner. She clearly has above average intelligence. Everyone comes to her to solve problems. She does however sometime not work well with others because she doesn’t have patience when people don’t get things as fast as her. But her speed at thinking puts her in a class above others.

We had a spot that both candidates were very qualified for. While candidate 1 is a hard, diligent worker, candidate 2 is smarter so she has better ideas and is quick-witted. Candidate 2 doesn’t doesn’t necessarily work as hard as candidate 1, but she doesn’t have to because she comes up with ideas and solutions that candidate 1 never could no matter how hard she tries, though she works very hard. Candidate 2 is able to come up with solutions immediately where candidate 1 takes some time to think through them. We ended up giving the job to candidate 2 because she is extremely intelligent, much more than candidate 1. Am I wrong for rewarding intelligence over hard work?

EDIT: The role is an individual contributor role without direct reports. The role requires the ability to solution problems and outline business plans. When both candidates give ideas, candidate 2’s are the ones that really stand out. Candidate 2 also has an Ivy League degree.