Deconstructing multiple sources of racial bias in recruitment
•
2 likes•38 views
Recruitment campaigns often focus on a psychometric test’s adverse impact as the sole barometer for Diversity and Inclusion. However, multiple sources of bias exist, especially among multi-stage recruitment campaigns, which typically include an eligibility sift, psychometric test, pre-recorded interviews, and face-to-face interviews. This webinar aims to highlight often-overlooked macro and micro sources of systemic bias against ethnic minority candidates using a real-world example from a large-scale recruitment campaign. You will gain an understanding of: • Various ways bias can manifest within their recruitment processes, and • What can be done to rectify unfair disadvantage at each stage?
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Deconstructing multiple sources of racial bias in recruitment
Similar to Deconstructing multiple sources of racial bias in recruitment (20)
Deconstructing multiple sources of racial bias in recruitment
- 1. Deconstructing Multiple Sources of Racial Bias in Recruitment Renu Gundala | Founder of Talent Grader Adrian Husbands | Psychometrician and Diversity & Inclusion Expert
- 2. Talent Grader is a dedicated assessment platform that supports SMEs, HR & recruitment professionals to Find valid and reliable talent assessments easily Recruitment partner for SMEs +44 (0) 773 0444 949 Renu@talentgrader.com https://www.talentgrader.com
- 3. Introducing Our Speaker: Mr Adrian Husbands • Chartered Occupational Psychologist, HR Consultant, Psychometrician • Brings a wealth of experience and innovative solutions regarding HR, Diversity and Inclusion. • Currently Founding Director of Bold People Limited, Strategic Advisor at Talent Grader, Assessment Board Member at Elsevier, Senior Associate Consultant at Communication Labs. • Previously Deputy Director of Assessment Services at SSCL, leading 80+ staff to deliver large-scale resourcing/D&I solutions for the Metropolitan Police Service, Ministry of Justice, and Department for Work and Pensions. • Resourcing/assessment work includes projects for The World Bank/Unicef, National Foundation for Educational Research, Royal College of Psychiatrists, National University Singapore. • Applied Scientist with peer-reviewed publications on Situational Judgement Testing, Multiple Mini Interviews, and Adverse Impact.
- 4. “Prejudice has not gone away, people have just become more adept at hiding and denying it, even from themselves. It has become harder to identify and more difficult to call out. It is often silent and even inadvertent but nonetheless devastating for the career prospects of the victim.” - Richard Keyon (Employment Lawyer), in Racism in the Workplace: New survey shows only slow progress, Personnel Today (2020)
- 5. Overview • We will cover • Example
- 6. Pre- Interview Attraction • Biased attraction campaigns • Purpose-driven attraction campaigns • Community outreach activities Eligibility Sift • Eligibility criteria mismatch • Increase perspective taking CV/Application Form • Socio-cultural cues • Suppression of diversity • Unstructured sifting • Anonymisation • Build cost/benefit awareness • Structured, pre-defined criteria Psychometric Test • Adverse impact • Cultural bias in questions • Historical blind-spots • Testing standards commitment • Diverse item-writers • Build historical awareness Interview Pre-recorded Interview • Internet bandwidth • Social cues in video, voice, free text • Shirley standards • Build cost/benefit awareness • Review rationale for selection • Train reviewers Live Interview • Rater inconsistency • Interview design • Proxy measures • Train raters • Multiple Mini Interviews • Question proxies Post- Interview Vetting • Invasive questions • Privacy/trust concerns • Construct-criterion mismatch • Increase perspective taking • Clearance status updates • Validity research References • Biased outcome measure • Reconsider criteria Micro Sources – Problems and Solutions
- 7. Macro Sources – Problems and Solutions Construct- Criterion Mismatch • Both often poorly defined • Job performance (criterion) often not measured • Little consideration of racism mediating job performance (criterion) Define Constructs and Outcomes • Work with stakeholders to identify the most appropriate constructs, operational definitions and job performance measures • Gain consensus on what each construct is/isn't Defining Psychometrics • Unhelpful (often official) definitions result in inadequate bias considerations • Psychometric tests viewed as ability/personality assessments • Individual components, and the bigger picture neglected. Educate Stakeholders on True Scope • Sensitise stakeholders on full scope of ‘psychometric assessments’ • Emphasis on end-to-end bias/adverse impact • Include all recruitment personnel involved Distancing/ Cancel culture • Organisational and governmental policies fuel unconscious bias • Black and white moralistic view of racism – racist/nonracist, bad/good • Racist unconscious thoughts shamed and suppressed Psychological Safety for Whites • Create safe space for conflict, resolution, learning • Dismantle punitive ‘zero-tolerance’ anti-racism policies while still maintaining accountability • Encourage compassion and non-judgement Neglecting the Role of Moral Reasoning • Low levels of moral reasoning accepted as normal • Obedience to laws, authority, conformity viewed as highest form • Focus in HR/recruitment on Equality and Diversity insofar as a tribunal wouldn’t find that unlawful conduct Select for and Develop Moral Reasoning • Build Postconventional Moral Reasoning awareness • Train staff to elevate reasoning scores • Use moral reasoning assessments Political Bias • Anti-racism, D+I agenda-setting not occurring within a neutral space • Bias and implicit assumptions among key stakeholders often unquestioned and unchallenged • Agendas led by those with vested interest in the status-quo Build Awareness of Political Bias • Build awareness of political bias ‘blind spots’ among stakeholders • Critically appraise end-to-end recruitment plans within the context of the wider socio-political landscape
- 8. Summary • Systemic problems require systemic solutions. • Your entire recruitment process is a psychometric assessment. • Bias should be ameliorated at both the component and systemic level. • Allow white colleagues a safe space to learn from mistakes on racial bias while maintaining accountability. • Avoid solutions that allows us to emotionally bypass discomfort about race. • Be willing to challenge the status quo/ask difficult questions. • Focus on learning and growth.
- 9. Contact Adrian at adrian.husbands@boldpeople.co.uk Renu Gundala at renu@talentgrader.com • “We help organisations to identify Diversity & Inclusion blind spots among their recruitment gatekeepers: HR staff, senior management and c-suite executives.”
Editor's Notes
- Problems - Attraction: Do you know where to find the people you wish to attract? For example the Met Police and similar organisations go out into the communities to specifically recruit Black and ethnic minority candidates. Healthcare institutions do the same by going into schools in poorer areas to recruit for ‘elite’ university courses. Social and print medial strategies may not be enough. Eligibility Sift One applicant was turned down from a role because they did not have British Citizenship, or Permanent Residency. They had a spouse visa, and according to the recruiter, what happens if they and their partner divorce? He was barred from the job. Some of your more diverse candidates may have right to work in the UK, but they might not appear in the way recruiters think it may appear. CV/Application Form Things like name, high school, university reveal information that may lead to biased decision-making. One common strategy is to anonymise CVs. But Anonymising CVs may also promote colour-blind racism. The notion of “not seeing race” or being “colorblind” serves to negate the cultural values and lived experiences of individuals from diverse backgrounds. By anonymising CVs are we as HR Professionals negating the cultural values and lived experiences of individuals from diverse backgrounds? Is this an attempt to avoid the discomfort that is necessary to push out thinking? Are we sending a message that we can’t help our racial bias in the present and forever? I’m not advocating one or the other. But perhaps we should weigh the costs and benefits. Perhaps it makes a good short term measure for new recruiters, but not long term. On a related point, application forms might be efficient, but what is lost regarding diversity. Think about how much of your own personal creative and professional flair is lost when you convert information on your CV to an application form. Are we valuing diversity and simultaneously expecting applicants to conform to a singular, nameless identity of ‘applicant’. Psychometric Test The adverse impact problem never seems to go away, especially with cognitive ability tests, verbal and numerical reasoning. Why do we still accept this as inevitable? The founding fathers of psychometrics, Karl Pearson and Francis Galton were Eugenicists. However, this history is suppressed. Tests such as cognitive ability tests were overtly created to identify people to eliminate from society through sterilisation – blacks, Jews etc. They said they wished they could kill them all, but that killing is not socially acceptable. We are using the same principles in test construction today, but yet we expect a different result. Is it really surprising that these tests tend to discriminate against Blacks and other ethnic minorities? Is the industry aware of how these tests were created? Have we accepted the status quo? Pre-recorded interview Why do you need to see someone’s face in pre-recorded interview, or hear their voice? Why not a timed writing assessment where candidates are asked to answer job-specific questions? Or perhaps there is a good reason why we wish to see someone in a pre-recorded interview? My point is that if there is a relationship between job performance and the visual cues we are observicng in a pre-recorded interview, then you can consider using it. However, if the visual cues have nothing to do with the job, or the construct you are measuring, then why do we need to see anyone at this stage. If this is the case and we want to interview candidates in any video-interview session – have we overcome the issue of Shirley Standards in webcams? There is racial bias in optics – originating when the original colour pallete was optimised according to the ideal skin tone, a white lady named Shirley. This is why many Black people, and others with darker skin tones, can appear as dark, featureless faces. Are we insisting on video interview vendors with skin-tone corrections/optimisation? Are we literally stopping candidates from being portrayed in the best light? Recorded interview Some can’t afford expensive suits and ties, or may be unaware one is necessary due to socialisation. All psychometric characteristics are proxy measures – we are drawing conclusions about how someone is likely to perform in a job based on non-job characteristics. Are we judging candidates according to a proxy measure that has no bearing on job performance? Interviews are one of the least effective predictors of job performance. The science has moved on, yet HR is lagging behind. [Health sciences now embrace multiple mini interviews – breaking down larger interviews into smaller snapshots by many different interviewers to improve reliability and validity. ] Vetting Intention is to ensure employees have integrity or are not a ‘risk’ to the business e.g police, prions, government clearance. Questions such as name all medication you are currently taking, criminal records, name of parents, properties owned in the UK and overseas, speeding fines etc. Excluded based on submitting false information. Current distrust between employees of colour and employers due to historical reasons. Many ethnic minority candidates who were offered a job are then excluded. Are we upfront with minority candidates about what vetting would entail at the attraction stage? Do they understand that not answering truthfully is seen as a sing of untrustworthiness? With regards to private sectors, one Black candidate recently applied to a very large bank for an HR role, and was turned down because his ‘credit score’ was too low. After they offered him the job, AND contacted his employers for refences. They said he had missed payments. With disproportionately more ethnic minority candidates being unemployed, is this practice showing bias against ethnic minority candidates, many who are in an already difficult financial position due to systemic racism? References Black and ethnic minority employees are overrepresented at Employment Tribunals, especially if faced with racism in the workplace. Are we excluding candidates based on a criterion (previous job performance) even though racism is a mediating factor?
- Problems Construct-criterion mismatch Constructs are what we are trying to measure, for example, communication, problem solving, and innovation. One client encountered a significant problem when they realised that communication, was actually proxy for British Politeness. However, there was no evidence to suggest that politeness, was/should be a strong factor in job performance. How is job performance defined? Is this, for example, maintaining the status quo? Are the constructs that employers feel are related to success, actually related to success? Think Enron for example, before they went bankrupt. They probably needed more employees who were willing to challenge senior management. Finally, we should also recognise that racism may have factored into job performance ratings. Have we disaggregated the racial bias that may be present in the employee’s definition of the ‘good employee’? Defining Psychometrics Consider this statement: Should employers use psychometric tests for Autistic candidates? I’ll tell you a story: I once attended a meeting involving a national recruitment process – in fact one of the largest in the UK – praising adverse impact statistics. However, after asking a question, I was told that their assessment centre was not a psychometric test and therefore does not need to meet requirements for psychometric test quality (such as reliability). Unfortunately, this perspective is common – psychometric tests often perceived as ability and personality tests – and that’s it. However, a psychometric test is anything that attempts to measure a psychological construct. This includes a-levels, gcses, maths tests at school, interviews, depression scales, autism diagnostic scales. Lack of awareness of this definition, creates a tremendous disservice to ethnic minority candidates. If often lead leads to a narrow focus on adverse impact on personality tests, neglecting the end-to-end recruitment process. [Your entire end-to-end recruitment procedure is one psychometric test]. Distancing/Cancel culture Sometimes psychological problems arise and we seek therapy. One of the therapist’s jobs is to bring the subconscious into the conscious without judgement, in order to help us overcome difficulties. Yet this is not how we treat racism in the workplace, and in larger society. Newspapers promote a ‘cancel culture’ where one racist slur/act can end someone’s entire distinguished career. Companied promote zero-tolerance anti-racism policies, where racist behaviour if discovered is automatically punitive. Instead of facing the problem with compassion, we quickly want to distance ourselves from it. This drives the problem of bias deeper underground, into the subconscious, where it becomes more difficult to identify and ameliorate. Neglecting the role of Moral Reasoning It is commonly believed that the highest level of moral reasoning equates to obedience to law, authority, and compliance with the status quo. Imagine Jim Crow laws in the civil rights era. It was lawful to discriminate, but was it the right thing to do? Obedience to law, authority, and compliance actually characterises the adolescent stage of moral reasoning. Institutional racism and bias are firmly secured within established structures. Yet, are we selecting recruitment professionals who are likely to challenge laws and systems that result in bias against minorities? I will remind the audience that evidence suggests the Equalities Act was passed as an excuse to be racist? Political Bias Our politicians have not been selected according to HR best practice around Diversity and Inclusion. We see the results of this all around us. Those who have the power to set the agenda/funding etc are mainly white people, often with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo – this vested interest may be conscious or subconscious. Should we be surprised that we have persistent problems with bias in recruitment? “Deep down they don’t really want competition for their children.” Are we prepared to robustly challenge senior leaders on their own bias?