The HR Digest - - Recruitment Point -

Also, be care­ful when you broach the sub­ject of hir­ing into the con­ver­sa­tion. Cer­tain sub­jects can be­come con­tro­ver­sial, es­pe­cially when they un­der­mine the peo­ple who are hired in those cat­e­gories or even lead to a lash back from the ad­van­taged groups. Re­search sug­gests that di­ver­sity in the work­force can be of im­mense busi­ness ad­van­tage. At the end of the day, it is the leader’s job to de­ter­mine what they’ve done to set out to achieve cer­tain di­ver­sity goals, if they have any. This would also en­cour­age the com­pany to keep di­ver­sity and equal­ity on top of the hir­ing process.

Stick with a method that does work, and sub­stan­tially re­duces er­ror in pre­dict­ing the out­come. Hu­mans are bi­ased, emo­tional and in­con­sis­tent when in­ter­view­ing. As a re­sult, only one in five in­ter­views in­crease the odds that a hired can­di­date will be suc­cess­ful. Un­con­scious bias or stereo­types can cre­ate a non-level play­ing field for le­git­i­mate job seek­ers. It is rare that an in­ter­viewer ever goes home to find out the can­di­date who was hired was not suc­cess­ful else­where. One no­table ex­am­ple of this be­ing Jan Koum, who was de­clined a job of­fer at Face­book and then ended up sell­ing his startup What­sapp to Face­book for $19 bil­lion.

Im­ple­ment th­ese steps at the fore­front of your hir­ing process. Rec­og­nize what you’re do­ing wrong with your re­cruit­ment process. Make sure you keep ex­per­i­ment­ing with what works best in your con­text. Hir­ing man­agers are pow­er­fully and un­con­sciously in­flu­enced by their bi­ases. It can be ex­tremely dif­fi­cult to re­move bias from an in­di­vid­ual. Although, it is quite pos­si­ble to de­sign a process that makes it harder for bi­ased minds to skew the hir­ing process with their judg­ment. Stop wast­ing your re­sources by try­ing to de-bias the mind­set. You should in­stead de­sign a smarter hir­ing

process that makes bi­ases pow­er­less, thus break­ing the link be­tween bi­ased and dis­crim­i­na­tory be­liefs. This will also help your or­ga­ni­za­tion save mil­lions of dol­lars from hir­ing a can­di­date not suited for the job. Most com­pa­nies and in­di­vid­u­als make less in­vest­ment in hu­man cap­i­tal, par­tic­u­larly when us­ing in­ter­views to eval­u­ate can­di­dates. In­ter­est­ingly, most or­ga­ni­za­tions spend 70% of their op­er­at­ing bud­gets on work­force ex­penses. Rarely do th­ese or­ga­ni­za­tions mea­sure the suc­cess of the hir­ing man­agers in their abil­ity to se­lect the right can­di­dates. It is also rare for hir­ing man­agers to hold them­selves ac­count­able for be­com­ing bet­ter in­ter­view­ers. Us­ing the afore­men­tioned tips you can eval­u­ate the qual­i­fi­ca­tions and suit­abil­ity of the job can­di­dates, by com­par­ing in­ter­view-based pre­dic­tions with the per­for­mance on the job. It is quite pos­si­ble that your or­ga­ni­za­tion’s re­turn on hu­man cap­i­tal in­ter­view will in­crease over time as you ac­knowl­edge and re­duce bias over time.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.