A comprehensive interview process is a vital part of any successful hiring strategy. However, the risk of bias, both conscious and unconscious, looms large, clouding judgement and hindering employers’ ability to onboard the best candidates for a role. By recognising the challenges that interviewer bias can represent, and working to overcome it, employers can make better-informed, rational decisions that ultimately lead to better hires. In this article, we’ll take a close look at the types of bias in job interviews, the impact it can have, and the strategies you can implement to mitigate its impact.
What is interview bias?
Bias itself means favouring or being against something (or someone) based on preconceived notions or personal preferences. Within the context of interviews, it means failing to maintain objectivity, allowing irrelevant factors to sway perceptions of a candidate, irrespective of their skills or qualifications. For example, interviewers can have unconscious responses to trivial candidate characteristics, including:
* Body language
* Lack of eye contact
* Hobbies
The impact of bias
Interviewer bias can significantly disrupt the recruitment process, leading to poor hiring decisions that have a detrimental impact on an organisation’s long-term objectives. In some cases, bias may positively favour a particular candidate, causing the interviewer to overlook their shortcomings. Conversely, it can negatively cloud an interviewer’s judgement, resulting in them unfairly overlooking a qualified candidate. Whether positive or negative, bias can lead to the hiring of a candidate over someone better suited for the role, ultimately affecting the overall quality of the workforce and organisational performance. It can also lead to a less diverse workforce, potentially harming an organisation’s reputation and deterring top talent from applying in the future.
Types of interview bias
There are several common biases that hiring managers should be aware of and actively work to overcome in the hiring process. Here are some of the most significant biases: Stereotyping: Stereotyping occurs when an interviewer judges someone based on their perceived group identity rather than their own individual characteristics, resulting in unfair and inaccurate assessments of candidates. For example, research suggests that women are more associated with qualities like empathy, listening, and understanding, while men are more associated with assertiveness, leadership, and numeracy. As a result, stereotyping can lead to:
* Rejecting a male candidate for a receptionist job because of the stereotype that women are more friendly.
* Overlooking a woman for a position with significant travel requirements due to the assumption that she has family obligations.
Recency bias: Memories of recent interviews and candidates’ answers to a set of questions used to evaluate their suitability are bound to be stronger and more vivid. That’s how recency bias can occur, as interviewers base their assessment on their latest interactions, rather than evaluating candidates over a wider period. As a result, more recent interview candidates may be favoured simply because their positive traits are fresher in an interviewer’s mind. Similarity bias: Also known as affinity bias, similarity bias is when interviewers gravitate towards candidates with who they have things in common, such as:
* Background
* Interests
* Personality traits
While this is natural in forming personal relationships, it can have a negative impact on the hiring process, resulting in interviewers favouring candidates who are like them, above those better suited to the role and job descriptions they are hiring for. Horn or halo effect: The horn and halo effects are biases where a single characteristic overly influences an interviewer’s overall perception of a candidate, whether positively or negatively. Here are examples of each:
* Halo effect: If a candidate comes from a prestigious company, an interviewer might let this affiliation influence their view of their suitability, overlooking potential shortcomings.
* Horn effect: If a candidate makes a spelling error on their CV or dresses inappropriately for an interview, the interviewer might let this negatively cloud their view of their qualifications and experience.
Confirmation bias: Confirmation bias occurs when an interviewer seeks out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs about a candidate while disregarding evidence that contradicts these notions. For example, if an employer has previously hired someone from a particular school or university who was a poor fit, they might assume that a new candidate from the same place is also unsuitable.
Strategies to reduce interview bias
Unfortunately, eliminating bias in the hiring process isn’t always possible. However, there are concrete steps you can take to help avoid bias in interviews moving forward.
1. Provide unconscious bias training: Unconscious bias training is essential for helping individuals recognise and address their inherent bias. By offering this training, employers empower teams to become more aware of their unconscious biases and equip them with strategies to mitigate their impact on the hiring process.
2. Utilise diverse recruitment channels: Expanding recruitment efforts to diverse channels can help to significantly reduce bias in interviews. By actively seeking candidates from a variety of backgrounds and demographics, employers can increase the likelihood of building a diverse talent pool.
3. Remove identifying information: Implementing blind applicant screening, for example by removing identifying features from applications, is a powerful strategy to mitigate bias. By adopting blind screening practices, organisations can ensure fairer evaluation of candidates based solely on their qualifications and skills. This approach is also particularly beneficial for skills-based roles, helping to ensure candidates are evaluated solely on their qualifications and experience, rather than on any unconscious biases related to their personal characteristics.
4. Use objective hiring criteria: Employing objective hiring criteria, such as focusing solely on factors directly related to success in a role while discounting socio-economic or educational status, is crucial for mitigating bias during recruitment. By emphasising measurable qualifications and job-related competencies, employers can minimise the influence of subjective factors that may lead to bias in the decision-making process.
5. Implement structured interviews: Structuring interviews is key to encouraging a fair and objective assessment of candidates while minimising the potential for bias. By incorporating a standardised format, such as competency-based interview questions, organisations can obtain an impartial evaluation of how candidates align with job requirements. Additionally, employing a consistent candidate rating system, where responses are assessed against predetermined criteria, helps to further enhance objectivity.
6. Consider panel interviews: Panel interviews offer a valuable opportunity to mitigate and remove bias from the hiring process by leveraging diverse perspectives. By assembling a panel of individuals from various backgrounds and experiences, organisations can ensure a more comprehensive evaluation of candidates. This approach not only minimises the risk of biases influencing the interview but also promotes inclusivity and diversity in the hiring process, providing a platform for multiple viewpoints to be considered, enhancing objectivity, and facilitating informed hiring decisions.