I agree that for a collective of candidates that one has to compare whatever each individual to the job description as well as things such as being able to take orders, get along with other employees, etc. as well as being able to compensate for perceived biases of the interviewer. But most of the selection process is purely extrinsic to the interviewee and says more about the beliefs of the interviewer. Many interviewers are not exactly objective about interviewees.

Originally, I was just questioning your: "Value comes from scarcity - not abundance!", not about the valuation of a group of potential employees. Value is extrinsic, not intrinsic to the evaluated object and can range from no value to great value depending on the individual doing the evaluation. In evaluating something, to whom is it of value, yourself, your neighbor, a group, a whole species, etc. To some in the Gulch, Objectivism is of great value but to others not so valuable due to its atheistic undertone of not allowing any primacy of consciousness or mystical beliefs or belief without evidence. Evaluations change. I recall that Paul Ryan who comes from my previous hometown, when he became a congressman could not say anything bad about Rand's Atlas Shrugged and had all his staff read it. Then he greatly downgraded its value due to judging it as being atheistic. The value of it is not due to its scarcity nor is it due to its abundance. Its value is only due to the evaluation done by an individual mind and is of importance only to that mind regardless as to how all others might evaluate the book.
In a large business with a multitude of applicants, the HR person valued by the board will evaluate the candidates by whatever standard allowed by the company with all the backgrounds of both the applicant and the HR person in the mix. Objectivity only comes in as how close the applicant comes to some standard that may or may not have evaluated the background of the applicant well.