Posts

Image by Brooke Cagle

How to Deliberately Eliminate Bias in the Hiring Process

/ /by

As we all know, the hiring process can be a stressful and uncertain time. From the candidates themselves to the HR professionals making the decisions, the stress is real. However, one thing that should prevail above all else is recognizing and addressing any unconscious bias that happens during a hiring event. As conversations surrounding diversity in the workplace continue, companies must reexamine their hiring process to eliminate any biases that influence decisions.

Whether we recognize it, unconscious biases do impact hiring decisions. By definition, unconscious bias is when a company makes a hiring decision based on unconscious thought processes. These processes cause one candidate to be preferred over another for irrelevant reasons, such as race, gender, sexuality, or simply “likeability.” Even in the beginning stages of the hiring process, bias can occur by judging a candidate’s picture, name, or hometown. Long story short, unconscious biases influence hiring decisions—sometimes positively, sometimes negatively—using criteria irrelevant to the job. This can cost companies time, money, and the opportunity to hire top talent.

Let’s discuss ways that HR professionals can be sure to keep unconscious biases front of mind and eliminate bias in the hiring process.

Utilize Hiring Technology to Increase Diversity

Many available tools help HR professionals be consistent in their hiring decisions. Software programs that blind the process are beneficial and go a long way in creating unbiased screening procedures. A blind, systematic approach for reviewing applications and resumes will help identify the most relevant candidates in the pool. Many platforms help uncover hidden gems that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. By cutting out unnecessary information, such as names and backgrounds, technology can be incredibly helpful in making unbiased—and increasingly beneficial—hiring decisions.

Not only does hiring technology help cut out the unnecessary, but it opens roles to a broader range of candidates than ever before. Now, a candidate halfway across the country is often able to apply for a previously unachievable role. In turn, this allows companies to broaden their horizons and consider a wider range of applicants.

Consider Leveraging a Skills Test

One of the biggest challenges of the hiring process is how easy it is to fall into the “requirements” trap. Feeling college degree requirements created an unfair advantage, many companies have simply eliminated them from their job descriptions. Instead, companies now turn to skills-based hiring processes to help eliminate bias in the hiring process. Unlike degree and experience requirements, skills tests open the door for a more diverse set of candidates who might otherwise not have bothered applying.

Take, for example, a candidate who doesn’t have any formal education but instead carries years of experience in the field. This person might never have made it past the initial screening due to their lack of a degree. But with the implementation of skills-based testing, they have the opportunity to compete on an even playing field with other candidates.

Consider Using Blind Written Exercises

Instead of asking questions about background, consider implementing a written exercise for potential candidates to complete. This process removes any unnecessary information that could lead to bias: no name, demographic information, or experience. And be sure not to include any data fields—like first and last name, education level completed, or schools attended. That might create a bias around how the written answers are perceived.

This less intrusive—and nearly blind—process results in HR professionals recruiting people who HR and hiring managers may never have considered but who are more than qualified for the job.

Continuously Evaluate the Hiring Process for Improvement

No matter how aware a company is of its diversity, more is still to be done if the goal is to eliminate bias in the hiring process. This begins with understanding our own biases. Then we must actively work against them through continuous improvement and development. When evaluating your hiring process, consider these tips:

  • Measure gender and race statistics by monitoring the percentages of female or non-white applicants who move through the hiring process.
  • Regularly communicate with hiring teams and company leadership about what criteria the company uses to evaluate applicants and make hiring decisions. (Also, always look for red flags that have little to do with the actual position.)
  • Be aware of modern hiring platforms that put solid practices into place with realistic goals for combating bias.
  • Consider hiring tools, such as structured interviews or discussion forums, to cut out the unnecessary noise.
  • Don’t be afraid to acknowledge when a process is not working—and quickly make adjustments.

Due to its often under-the-radar nature, bias in the hiring process can be tricky to address. However, with determination and a dedicated strategy, any HR professional can make strides toward combating this all-too-pervasive HR issue.

Pay Inequity

/ /by

“People don’t care who they hurt or beat. For the love of money.” excerpt from the song “For the Love of Money,” by The O’Jays

Pay inequity. This is a well-worn topic that has been getting a lot of attention, especially over the past few years. Pay inequity is an insidious practice felt by many and one that knows no boundaries. Undeniably, it’s more targeted at certain people based on their gender, age, occupation, education, race, religion, and geography. There are even people in the Hollywood spotlight who have spoken out against this transgressive bias, as even these privileged few have felt the wrath of pay inequity’s duplicitous effects.

Albeit the United States Supreme Court has laws in place to counteract the negative effects of pay inequity, it’s still an all-to-common occurrence, because these laws are not properly enforced with assurances of stringent consequences to the offenders.

You’ve Not Come A Long Way Baby

From 1974 through 2014 the organization, American Association of Women, conducted a research study that found female workers in the United States were garnering salaries (depending on the state) that range from ten percent to thirty-five percent less than their male counterparts doing the same job with the same number of years’ experience. This same organization predicts that based on the current salary trend, it will take another 100 years for this pay gap to close. Further, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States is one of the more egregious countries when it comes to the blatant practice of pay inequity in the gender pay gap.

The topic of pay inequity is not just a matter of gender and race bias, however women, especially those of color, tend to be at the bottom of the pay scale. According to an article in The New York Times, a 2016 research study uncovered the harsh reality of how businesses view work performed by women. The study found that duties completed by women are not perceived as being a value-add in the workplace. Further, some researchers suggest that society places pressure on women to pursue historically lower paying female-oriented jobs versus seeking jobs that men have traditionally held. The conclusion here is that women succumbing to these pressures are being suppressed by a society that is not ready to view women as equals to men in the workplace and beyond. But women are not the only people suffering from this bias.

Other Casualties

The topic of pay inequity goes beyond targeting women; it similarly affects both women and men of color. Valerie Wilson, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, determined that the pay discrepancy between white households and black households in the United States, has widened since 1979. Further the National Women’s Law Center found that the average Latin male and female employee would have to work 73 years longer to collect the same pay as their white male counterparts.

The National Bureau of Economic Research economists, Carruthers and Wanamaker, conducted an investigation to unearth wage discrepancies against black men during the 1940’s. One thing they uncovered was certain localized laws from the 20th century and earlier (mostly practiced in the southern area of the United States) set a precedence where segregated, oppressed black citizens were only allowed access to public schools where very little money was endowed and with that, adequate education was lacking to advance and support post-school employment to better paying jobs. The sad truth is this oppression is still felt and imposed on black working Americans decades later.

Additionally, a combination of age, inexperience and gender can, also, come into play when pay inequity is suspected. As employers are evaluating people entering the workforce and considering their universally under-developed skills, instances of young females being paid less has been reported when compared to males in the same age group.

How Can We Solve This Problem?

As a society, we need to re-examine certain perceptions and traditions, however if we cannot come to a consensus, we will never move the needle forward to solve the problem of pay inequity. To begin, better wide-spread education and public awareness are a must. People need to know where their money is going and how it is being spent. There are many suggested solutions from varying pundits to remedy the pay inequity problem, but they need to see a follow-through on execution. Three such ideas are:

  • Cap CEO pay
  • Increase taxes on the super-rich
  • Penalize companies for shipping jobs abroad

Clearly when it comes to these ideas, we need an aggressive plan of action. Capping CEO salaries, can be done but certain considerations need to be identified first. Who will be the oversight to enforce this? How will the appropriate consequences be determined and how will the policy be imposed? Which CEOs fall into the capped salary structure? Obviously, publically traded companies must disclose their financials, so they’re the obvious choice, but are there other companies which should be considered? Also, setting a limit on CEO exit plans, where all too often, the golden parachute is a ridiculous amount of money. Increasing taxes on the 0.00001 percent of the population that are billionaires is certainly worth a long look. As one solution, a structured plan can be imposed with proper tax levying based on capital gains within identifiable tax brackets. Penalizing companies for sending work abroad is a good idea, but companies need to be properly incentivized to want to keep work here. If companies choose not to observe, then imposing penalties such as paying tariffs, along with increased income tax for business conducted here may need to go into effect. Also, as part of keeping consumers informed, boycotting the company’s products and services may be used as a message to companies that do not comply.

These three options are just a few in a long list of other proposed solutions that have many layers of complexity to consider. With thorough consideration they can work, but a better understanding of the consequences and benefits needs to be carefully weighed first. We need a workable solution with quantifiable outcomes and accountability that incentivizes companies to do the right things and a system in place that oversees the follow-through on execution of the policies. Conjecture is not going to get us to where we need to be. Caring, listening, talking, resolving and taking the appropriate steps to stop pay bias is the right thing to do… of this, I am sure.

 

Photo Credit: nylsmkt via Compfight cc