First impressions

Even in the least enlightened organisations, managers who are responsible for recruiting are generally aware that discrimination in their decision-making is unlawful. They usually know they can’t reject a perfectly good candidate because of race, disability or another characteristic protected under the Equality Act. But discrimination still occurs, and it’s not all down to managers who are content to ignore their obligations not to discriminate. Instead, much of it is a result of what is called ‘unconscious bias’.

This then becomes self-perpetuating as candidates recruited in the image of an unconsciously biased recruiting manager go on to recruit images of themselves into the organisation

For all of us, when faced with the amount of information we are processing, a certain amount of it is processed almost automatically, without conscious thought. This rapid processing is only possible with the use of stereotypes. Stereotypes are where we associate certain traits, attributes and characteristics with individuals who fit into a certain category in our head, and stereotypes can therefore influence how we perceive and assess others. Reliance on stereotypes can and does help us process information more quickly, and enables us (or forces us) to form impressions of people in a short space of time, but without solid evidence to support those impressions.

Unconscious bias exists where someone is using stereotypes to process information without being consciously aware of it. It is more prevalent than conscious bias, can frequently be seen among those who might perhaps be horrified at the thought that they are discriminating, and has shown to have a stronger impact than conscious bias. Studies show that people associate positive characteristics and attributes more quickly and easily with, for example, white people as opposed to people from a minority ethnic background. The same applies to able-bodied people as compared to disabled people, and this trend continues throughout those characteristics protected under the Equality Act.

In terms of the impact on recruitment specifically, blind studies have demonstrated that candidates with white-sounding names as opposed to stereotypically African-American names, or male candidates as opposed to female candidates, perform more successfully in terms of CVs being shortlisted or appointments being made.

We all start making assumptions about job applicants from the minute we receive information about them, whether it’s on a CV or when we first meet them at an interview. This happens particularly when one candidate is from a category which doesn’t fit with our perception of usual successful holders of the job we are recruiting to (such as female lighting technicians or male PAs), or where the pool of candidates for a role or promotion is almost entirely of one category, with one person from a different category.

Where a trait or characteristic fits with the stereotype in our head, we see it more quickly and remember it more readily. Where an attribute doesn’t fit, we question it more closely, and subject it to greater scrutiny. It’s easy to identify that, despite all the best intentions of recruiters, unconscious bias can and does penalise individuals from certain groups. Not only does this open the recruiting employer to a risk of a claim of discrimination, but it impacts the effectiveness of recruitment itself. If a recruiting manager is allowing stereotypes about people within certain categories to influence their decision-making, there is a risk that the best person will not be accurately identified.

In addition to stereotypes, there is also a common tendency to recruit in one’s own image. We naturally feel more comfortable with those candidates with whom we can personally identify. This can lead to recruiting candidates from similar work or educational backgrounds, but can also extend to an unconscious preference for candidates from a similar ethnic origin, say, or a similar age group. This then becomes self-perpetuating as candidates recruited in the image of an unconsciously biased recruiting manager go on to recruit images of themselves into the organisation. Diversity within that organisation suffers as a result.

A diverse workforce has myriad benefits for an organisation, including enhancing public image, increasing the available candidate pool, improving ability to adapt to a changing marketplace, fostering creativity and innovation, and making the organisation better able to reflect (and market to) an increasingly diverse marketplace.

It’s easy to see why addressing unconscious bias is vital for the arts and culture sector, but how can this be achieved, given those whose decisions are affected may consider themselves to be entirely open-minded and fair when recruiting? The good news is that it is possible to reduce or eliminate the impact of these on recruitment decision-making. Managers need to be educated about the existence of unconscious biases, encouraged to recognise them and prompted to take steps to ensure their decision-making isn’t affected by them. Individuals can then deactivate them and form slower, more accurate and more evidence-based impressions of people.

At the same time, recruitment processes which reduce reliance on first impressions and focus instead on obtaining and relying on objective evidence based on job-related criteria for decision-making can reduce the impact and prevalence of unconscious bias. This will provide a useful framework and prompt for managers to maintain awareness of stereotypes and work to avoid using them.

Eleanor Deem is Director of Face2Face HR.
www.face2facehr.com