Nearly all judgments we make about people are subject to some bias. We carry around these mental shortcuts so that every social situation doesn’t have to consist of obtaining all new information. I will leave to the evolutionary biologists to fill in the details as to why we do this.
From a practical point of view, these biases invade our work related decisions, such as deciding who did better in an interview, which employee should get a special assignment or a higher performance evaluation, etc. Of course, these biases go both ways. Employees are making the same types of judgments about their boss, interviewer, etc.
We have good ways to minimize these biases in hiring tools (evaluate tests scores by group to ensure that different groups are scoring equivalently, adding structure to interviews, using objective performance metrics rather than ratings, etc.). However, these biases also extend to how we communicate broadly.
Take a look (or listen) to this story. It describes steps that a company took to widen its applicant pool (BTW: This is my favorite way to combat adverse impact). Through a data analysis of language in job postings it was found that certain words/phrases would encourage or discourage certain applicant groups. Changes were made and applications increased.
The article addresses two uncomfortable truths:
- We all have biases
- They cannot be trained away.
The second one is a bit tougher for my friends in OD to deal with because a core tenant to diversity training is that if we are aware of our biases we can some how eliminate them. The research indicates that this is not the case.
However, in recruiting and selection, we can take steps to reduce bias from the process, including:
- Careful wording of recruitment notices so that they don’t send unintended messages that would lead members of certain groups not to apply.
- Using selection tools which minimize human bias, such as validated pre-employment tests. Perhaps this also means using audio, instead of video, for evaluating interviews, assessment center exercises, and work sample tests. Many symphonies now do this when evaluating musicians.
- Adding as much structure as possible to interview protocols.
We know that good selection techniques have a higher ROI than training. Likewise, it is more cost efficient to implement good practices to mitigate bias than to train it out of people.
What are you doing to reduce bias on your selection/promotion procedures?
For more information on valid pre-employment testing, structured interviews and other fair selection techniques, please contact Warren Bobrow.