Looking at it your way – Unconscious bias and recruiting for technical roles
We seem to have been talking forever about the need for more diversity in science-based industries. Despite all the efforts put into encouraging more gender diversity in the labs, male, and more specifically white male, dominance is still a concern. However, this is seemingly not from a desire to maintain the status quo. Almost every business we speak to is either actively pursuing a more diverse workplace or looking to implement more strategies to encourage one.
In fairness, we need to be realistic and accept that this is not something we can cure with a magic bullet solution. As has been identified many times, a multi-layer approach starting in education and ending in the workplace is needed. It is a long game certainly, but one worth playing. Putting aside the natural moral and ethical desire to ensure our workplaces are inclusive, there is a very clear business reason for encouraging diversity. A diverse workplace has multiple benefits and not the least of these being an increase in productivity.
Simply put, workplaces without diverse teams are missing out on the talent, creativity and skills of a large number of potential employees. Diversity in the workplace is not just a matter of an ethical position; it has a positive financial benefit.
Legally, as we all know, we are required to conform to the benchmarks that prevent us from unfairly favouring or being unfairly biased towards particular candidates and employees. I doubt there are many HR departments or management teams that are not 100% compliant in this area. The rules are reasonably clear, and we all adhere to them.
Unconscious bias, though, is a different matter. Partly because it doesn’t have the clarity of a legal framework, but mostly it is, by its very nature, a hidden problem. To address it, therefore, we need the procedures that recognise it is there and shine a light on where it influences decisions made and the outcome of recruitment. Recognising we are acting on these motivating factors is an uncomfortable position to adopt. In essence, we are asking ourselves to admit we are behaving in a way that we would all prefer to think we did not.
How do we address unconscious bias in the recruitment process?
With so many challenges to overcome, it is tempting to throw your hands in the air and just adhere to the legalities of employment. However, this is one of those situations where the cultural and procedural process within an organisation can be changed with small steps.
One way to start is to look for expressions of implicit bias rather than try to tackle the hidden bogeyman of unconscious bias in general. Identifying implicit bias and removing or neutralising it is a good first step to making your hiring process more inclusive. While there is probably other work to be done in terms of the internal culture, some small steps can help take away the opportunity for unconscious bias to affect recruitment. As with many problems, you can break it down into specific targets and then remove the opportunity for it to manifest.
Knowing the bias points is crucial, but we are often talking about more than the usual suspects such as gender and race when we are addressing unconscious bias. There are other factors that we may need to consider. Indications of relative wealth, manner of speech, physical appearance, and so on all create an impression of the candidate. These are opportunities for unconscious bias to influence the selection of candidates for a job. A good exercise then is to consider the points in your recruitment process where bias may come into play and raise awareness of them. Once in the light of day, they are less likely to be a factor resulting in candidates being judged on skills and ability rather than who they are. However, that does not mean that the personality of the candidate cannot be a factor in your decision of who to employ. You are also looking for an employee who will fit into your ethos and culture. Candidates are not robots, and as an employer, you can choose who you feel would be the best fit for your team, but that best-fit decision should not be influenced by inherent bias, only by the suitability of the candidate.
Standardise across the whole process
Standardising your initial approach to selecting which candidates to consider for an interview is a relatively easy process (see the next point), but this can be extended to the interview stage. Consistency of content in initial interviews and meetings will allow you to make clearer decisions, not just about who you prefer but why you prefer them. If every candidate goes through the same procedure at the interview, it will give you anchor points on which to hang your judgement of their suitability. It is the difference between stating ‘I think they will fit in’ and having a record that you think the candidate is a good fit because of their answers to a set question or because you gave them a skills test. An unsupported statement may well prove to be correct, but with a standardised recruitment process, you will be able to say why it is correct.
Remove identifiers from CVs and other materials
The purpose of a CV is usually not to identify the person being introduced except by their skills and suitability for the role. The interview process is designed for personal interaction, the CV stage is not. This doesn’t mean that the candidate’s personality cannot come through in introduction statements, CV examples, and so on. However, if you remove references to gender, age and other potentially motivating biases from the CV in advance, you are levelling the playing field.
Mind your own language
A good area to consider first when looking to combat inherent bias is to consider the expression of it in the language used. Is it actually appropriate or necessary, for example, to use words that promote a gender bias in internal communications or candidate evaluations? While there is still some debate around the research at the granular level, it is pretty much agreed that some words attract or repel specific gender candidates. The result of this is those candidates who identify as female will be less likely to apply for a job that uses masculine language. In effect, the language of the advertisement itself is telling them they do not meet requirements.
Promote recognition of implicit bias internally
While it certainly can be a little uncomfortable to do, it is really worth looking at how we all use certain bias-laden language in our internal communications during the selection and interview process. It is very easy to add a factual but potentially biased statement. There is really no need to add information beyond the facts, but we still do, often with good intentions. For example, if someone has a poor standard of written communication, then unless there is a very good reason to do so, there is no need to point out that this may be because English is a second language. We may well want to mention this in an attempt to be supportive or as a justification for refusing them the role, but there is simply no need to add this fact. If the role requires a high standard of written communication, then that is all there is to it. Even if the communication problem is not a defining condition of employment, then there is still no need to qualify the point unless you have a specific reason to do so.
Conclusion
It is important to realise the need to address bias because challenging implicit and unconscious bias is well worth the fight. It isn’t easy to change or expose it because it is part of all of us, but the benefits of addressing it are numerous. Science and technology industries, such as pharma and biotech, have long been a battleground in the fight to increase diversity and inclusivity. It is not through lack of trying that this issue still persists, and great strides have been made in education and the workplace to create more diverse teams. Where some industries may struggle to adapt, the pharma space is actively looking to genuinely embrace an inclusive ethos in our experience. Extending this ethos into the recruitment process is another step forward and can only help generate a more creative and productive industry.
Some supporting information: