I remember distinctly growing up and witnessing with horror the treatment an Asian friend received from complete strangers on the streets of the North East. It was the first time I realised other people’s experiences were different from my own. It was foundational in forming the person I became, as was my resolve to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him whenever we encountered the racism which was a part of his day-to-day life.
The world has changed a lot since then, but those prejudices remain, even for those of us who try hard to educate ourselves and play our part in breaking them down.
That’s because our unconscious biases take a lot to overcome, even when we think we’ve acknowledged and corrected for them.
We need to think broadly about unconscious bias too.
Gender and ethnicity biases are the most commonly understood versions of unconscious bias, and they are incredibly significant, but the issue runs far deeper.
Imagine for a moment you’ve run a blind application process, you’ve accounted for bias in the language of your job advert and in any outreach you’ve done to candidates, and as a result you’ve got a good, diverse set of candidates coming in for interview.
The first candidate is in front of you, and you ask a question about their interests to build rapport.
It turns out they like the same sport as you – it could be cycling, or surfing or tennis.
You’ve established a positive connection, but each of those activities above has a barrier to entry.
They require money and time – which those with caring responsibilities might not have.
You need specialised equipment, coaching or support – even more so if you’re not able-bodied.
And there are cultural and social expectations around those sports which can make people hesitant to take them up.
So, in building that rapport and establishing that positive connection, there are biases which come into play.
If you allow that bias to encourage you to favour one candidate over another, there are two problems which result.
First, you’re inadvertently excluding those who aren’t able to engage in those hobbies, or simply don’t want to.
Second, you’re risking putting together a team which shares the same interests, and with that similar experiences and similar backgrounds.
So, you could be missing out on the best talent, while creating a homogenous team that lacks the different views and opinions needed to operate efficiently – all because you latched on a specific piece of information about a candidate.
This is known as affinity bias.
There’s a similar issue known as the halo effect, where you favour those who you’ve learned something impressive about.
Why not be impressed with candidates? Isn’t that a good thing?
It absolutely is a good thing…when it’s warranted.
It can’t be the case that you favour a candidate because, for example, you learn they went to a certain school or university.
Whether it’s a world-beating one, one with a great reputation in your industry, or one you have a personal connection to because you went or its in your hometown, the mere fact they attended doesn’t mean they are right for the role.
We know all sorts of things influence us when recruiting – body language, a handshake, perceptions of beauty, even a person’s height.
A study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found each extra inch on a person’s height was worth US$789 per year on their salary.
Countering all of this is, of course, incredibly difficult.
However, one key tool is the structured interview.
That means using the same set of questions for each interview, with pre-defined criteria for making a judgment. That way every candidate is getting a fair hearing, with the same opportunity to give a good account of themselves.
You can never remove bias completely, but structured interviews can help you minimise it.
