COVID-19 May Worsen Biases During The Hiring Process. Here’s How That Can Be Avoided

Research shows that person-organization fit and person-job fit are established predictors of performance.³ However, these fits don’t always occur because of large informational asymmetries between organizations and job aspirants.⁴ For example, job applicants may be influenced by a range of factors including perceived job value, perceptions of interview performance, cultural norms, beliefs and interests, and even the wording of the job posting itself. Conversely, the recruiting team may unconsciously attribute certain qualities to specific demographics, and may have an affinity for people with characteristics similar to those who they are familiar with. From this, applicants may be discriminated against on account of their race, gender, or other demographic factors, including where they live or go to school.^5,6

In order to reduce the impact of these biases, HR managers can take the following steps: 

The wording of job ads matters. When job ads include more masculine than feminine wording, women find these jobs less appealing.⁷ For example, job postings that state “we will challenge our employees to be proud of their chosen career” or “you will develop leadership skills and learn business principles” are more likely to attract males when compared to “we nurture and support our employees, expecting that they will become committed to their career” or “you will develop interpersonal skills and understanding of business.” Ad wording can also impact how different demographic groups view the organization.⁸

A racial gap in labour market outcomes exists – we know that African-Americans face differential treatment when searching for jobs such as getting fewer callbacks for each resume they send out.^9,10 There is evidence to show that East Asians may face discrimination in the coming months as well.¹¹ Research shows that bias can be removed by anonymizing resumes in the job screening process. 

Gender bias in the evaluation of job candidates exists across business, government, and academia. An “evaluation nudge”, in which candidates are evaluated jointly rather than separately, can stop evaluators from relying on cognitive shortcuts, such as group stereotypes. This will focus evaluators’ attention on what they should be doing — evaluating the ability of candidates. Joint evaluation can help address bias against groups other than women, as evaluators have access to more information than they would if they evaluated candidates separately.¹²

The unstructured interview as a predictive technique is unreliable because of its lack of validity. Research suggests that structured interviews — in which the questions to be asked are predetermined and are directly related to the job — are far more effective in ensuring objectivity and fairness. HR managers must try and articulate attributes they look for in candidates as objectively measurable criteria.¹³

HR managers will have their hands full as they start evaluating millions of applicants who wish to re-enter the job market when the economy starts to recover. The financial and time-related costs of unbiasedly evaluating candidates are low, and the benefits can be long-lasting and immense. HR managers just need the will to do so.