Unconscious bias and short-termism are costing our industry’s recruitment process
PHD’s Stephanie Douglas-Neal argues that media agencies are being let down by unconscious bias and short-term thinking when it comes to hiring the next wave of talent.
A vast body of research demonstrates that all hiring processes are biased and unfair. Unconscious ageism, sexism, and racism all play a role in whom we hire.
Given the core of our business is understanding people and audiences, and how to better engage with them, a representative workforce is key. Therefore, we need to take practical steps as an industry to ensure we address barriers within our recruitment processes if we want to create the optimal talent pool within our organisations.
Stephanie, whilst your argument in clearly in good faith, it nonetheless conveniently chooses to ignore what the vast majority of the data on unconscious bias testing actually tells us (namely the test:retest ratio is poor, and makes results hard to validate across the individual), likewise, does not in fact tell us anything about how supposed unconscious bias has any real impact on real world action (assuming of course that you believe the results of any testing)
Similarly you clearly confuse unconscious bias and conscious bias. For example, your comment on applicants from SE Asia, the fact the hiring managers know they are from SE Asia is a CONSCIOUS decision. For a bias to be unconscious, how can it be measured? How can it be surfaced? How can it even be known?
You might point to ‘Harvard data’ (where one would assume you refer to the work of Mahzarin Banaji), however the work of Banaji (and her co-creator on the IAT, Anthony Greenwald) has been debunked time and time again (including a 72,000 result-strong meta analysis from 2016 clearly showing no causal link between unconscious bias on behavior.
I get it, i really do, no one wants to appear to be engaging in any form of discriminatory behavior. But with unconscious bias, we’re chasing shadows. We cannot ignore the wealth of data that exists that calls into question this topic. We have to have that conversion.
Refreshing to hear.
The word not a cultural fit is also one that lends to bias. Lets stop using it and focus on a more accountable system.
Spot on. Hire people improve a culture, not to fit it. If everything fits it goes stale, hire to enhance.
‘Train your hiring managers’ is also of such monumental importance. Panels who can over ride a hiring managers decision work. Seriously they can. Rogue hiring managers who create boys clubs, or girls clubs, or lack an understanding of how to enhance a culture will ruin your business. Set up a panel and coach hiring managers as to why they should or shouldn’t take a hire…
The workplace is not one giant, social experiment. Fit is important to company culture and the argument that staff structure should represent consumer structure is rubbish and unachievable: you don’t have to be ‘one’ to understand ‘one’, that’s what research, insight and perception combine to deliver.
The system works just fine; the smart companies will hire the people who are right for them and their clients, and will prosper. If it takes SE Asians to achieve that, it will happen, if it’s not happening already.
I’m afraid that your attitude is creating a very negative image for your organisation. You have completely failed to acknowledge the rise of Asia and multiculturalism in Australia. Who you consider is “right for you and your clients” is rather your own preference and bias, not really an indication of true talent. In fact, talent don’t necessarily have to fit into your own imagination. Again, when you say “you don’t have be one to understand one”, it’s just your own perception, kind of like … guessing what people really think based on your gut feelings. If you think you can achieve long-term success by sticking to your “conventional” hiring practice, good luck to you! I myself don’t hope to be one of your employees/colleagues one day.
Cite
Hi Spell,
Thanks for flagging the error. I have amended.
Vivienne – Mumbrella