www.thehrdirector.com
Organisations with a need to address bias during the recruitment process can also look at the use of CVs and resumes. Studies have consistently shown that if two CVs are more or less the same, apart from the names, e.g. John Smith and Jennifer Patel, the under- represented groups are significantly less likely to be called back for interviews. In one study, looking at scientific jobs, not only was ‘John’ seen as being more competent, he was also recommended to start on a significantly higher salary. An intriguing element of this research was that female recruiters were prone to this bias in exactly the same way as the men. Problems often arise when internal pressures result in an untrained interviewer being responsible for recruitment, as supposed to the expert HR professional who will be more familiar with interview pitfalls. Those who say 'I can tell what a person's like as soon as they walk through the door' or 'I get a feeling in my gut' are giving into their instinctive bias, and not actually considering the qualities of the person in front of them. Untrained interviewers make up their minds about a candidate as quickly as one tenth of a second after meeting them. The results from these types of interviewers are so poor, companies would be better off choosing people at random - it would certainly be quicker, just as effective, and 100 percent fair.
We all know about the 'similar to me' effect where interviewers are more likely to choose someone who looks and sounds like them, but we shouldn't underestimate the effects of accent bias. If the interviewer is similar to the candidate, but both are different to the type of person currently doing the job, then a 'similar to them' effect can occur, when the interviewer unconsciously hires a clone of themselves. This may be avoided by a couple of people partaking in the interview process. However, there is a widespread belief that panel interviews are better than singleton interviews. This is not always the case, one-to-one interviews with trained interviewers often have just as good outcomes as the panel approach. Ultimately, it’s about becoming an expert in interview techniques and this is where HR can provide their particular expertise. It can be useful for the recruiter to look at their list of desired competencies when recruiting and check for bias. Sometimes the bias isn’t in the competencies themselves, but in their interpretation. Words like 'driven',
'competitive', and 'execution' are not biased in themselves. Women and men are both equally likely to have these qualities. The problem is how to individually evaluate a man and a woman who demonstrate these qualities. Invariably, women who have these characteristics can be judged more harshly.
people may be hired because they fit in with a certain stereotype - and they may then resent, or be resented, for being recruited. Ultimately, it's not just about policies. It's about us, as human beings recognising that we are all susceptible to bias. Many organisations are trying to combat this by conducting
IF THE INTERVIEWER IS SIMILAR TO THE CANDIDATE, BUT BOTH ARE DIFFERENT TO THE TYPE OF PERSON CURRENTLY DOING THE JOB, THEN A 'SIMILAR TO THEM' EFFECT CAN OCCUR, WHEN THE INTERVIEWER UNCONSCIOUSLY HIRES A CLONE OF THEMSELVES
Interestingly, some of the concerns about diversity in the selection process may be contributing to unfair outcomes. For example, how do we discuss disability in an interview? A typical response is that it shouldn't be discussed at all. Unfortunately, research shows that not discussing a visible disability, or even not mentioning it until the end of the interview, actually reduces the chances of a candidate being selected. Obviously discussing this in an interview may make some people feel uncomfortable, but it needs to be done in a skilful and appropriate manner. Avoiding the subject altogether won’t make it go away. Many organisations use tests to help select candidates, but these can come with their own set of problems. HR departments often rely on the professional skills of psychologists to advise them, yet some consultants are not as thorough as they should be. There are tensions between the tests needing to be fair and selling the tests. After all, it is a product like any other. From the 1960s to the 1980s, there was a wide ranging debate about whether these tests were inherently unfair. After much debate, the conclusion is that tests are amongst the valid predictors that we have. Unfortunately, many tests still reveal wide disparities in scores between majority and minority candidates, so we may well find that the debate around applicant testing will soon be reopened.
One area that continues to gain attention is what is known as ‘stereotype threat’, where members of a group feel at risk of conforming to stereotypes of that group. In many cases,
unconscious bias training, and this needs to be included in selection training. HR professionals need to be given the support to ensure inclusion is looked at during every stage of recruitment and to take the opportunity to make sure that their workforce is properly equipped to combat bias. Above all, we all need to be prepared to test our own assumptions, not only about people, but about our approach to the issue of diversity itself.
*Full Fact:
https://fullfact.org/economy/job-applicants-ethnic- minority-sounding-names-are-less-likely-be-called-interview/
FOR FURTHER INFO
www.pearnkandola.com
SEPTEMBER 2016 thehrdirector 25
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
