 |
A Look At The Impact vs. Intent
of Preferences: Through the Diversity Lens (Part I of III)
Cathlene Johnson
bio l
email
|
|
One of the
major obstacles that recruiter’s face when recruiting diverse
candidates is the emphasis that hiring managers place on
preferences. Preferences are a list of requirements, anchored
in the job description, determined by the hiring manager’s
direct, extended and broad experiences with candidates and used
to determine which candidate is best. Preferences usually
contain:
-
Industry specific exposure,
-
Duration of specific experience, or
-
Attendance at a specific educational institution:
Here is an
example of how a hiring manager may use preferences. The job
requirements or job description looks like this:
When the
recruiter discusses the job with the hiring manager it looks
like this:
“I want an
MBA candidate out of Kellogg, U of C or HBS. This candidate
needs to be more qualified than the clients they are working
with so make sure they are on the heavier end of that 5-7 years
of experience. Additionally, make sure that their experience
has been in the consumer goods industry with any of the fortune
100 companies.”
Then the
hiring manager indicates that they would really like you to
focus on finding a diverse candidate for this position.
Now you
might be saying to yourself, what’s wrong with this? Is it not
the hiring manager’s role to determine what preferences they
would like to see in the candidate’s background and
experiences? The answer is yes. But, what impact does
preferences have on the ability to source, recruit and hire
diverse candidates.
Impact vs.
Intent of Preferences
Let’s take
a look at the impact vs. intent of preferences through the
diversity lens.
The intent
of a hiring manager in developing a list of preferences is to
hire the type of candidate that they believe will be successful
in the job. Preferences are developed over an extended period
of time through the hiring manager’s direct, extended and broad
experiences with candidates. Hiring criteria developed
exclusively on preferences has two immediate problems:
1)
if your
hiring manager has had limited experiences with diverse
candidates, the hiring manager’s preference definition may not
be inclusive of a diverse candidate’s background and/or culture.
2)
Another
trapping of a preference based hiring criteria, is that it
promotes “similar or familiar to me” recruiting. “Similar or
familiar to me” recruiting uses one’s own group affinity and
cultural identification to determine which candidate is best.
It results in the hiring of candidates with similar or familiar
affinities, interest and backgrounds while excluding from
consideration others, who qualifications are different in
nature, not quality.
“Similar
or familiar to me” recruiting occurs very easily in the
recruiting process. In many cases, this practice gives those
candidates whose backgrounds are similar or familiar to the
hiring manager, an advantage.
How so?
Two things tend to happen with this type of recruiting:
1)
it is
easier to connect with candidates who have a similar or familiar
backgrounds or interests. Thus, dismissing the “fit” question
immediately.
2)
“Similar
or familiar to me” recruiting makes the assessment part of the
interviewing process much easier for the hiring manager. It’s
easier to assess a candidate with similar affinities. You went
to a big ten institution so you are comfortable with the
educational learning’s of a graduate from a big ten
institution.
While it
is easier to assess what we are familiar with its harder to
assess a candidate’s experience and fit when we aren’t as
familiar. Our unfamiliarity may make connecting with the
candidate and assessing the candidate harder. Look at the
educational assessment used earlier in this segment. Compare
that to a candidate who completed their education at a Hispanic
Serving Institution (HSI) that may be unfamiliar to the hiring
manager or recruiter. One, they don’t know anything about,
never heard of, never knew anyone who graduated from a HSI and
have never had anyone work for or with you who attended a HSI.
This difference in nature, not quality and the unfamiliarity
with the educational background may make this candidate less
desirable.
Double
Jeopardy
There is a flip side to this coin, a double jeopardy for
those candidates whose qualifications are different in
nature, not quality.
|
There is a flip side to this coin, a double jeopardy for
those candidates whose qualifications are different in
nature, not quality. Our unfamiliarity with
backgrounds and experiences different in nature, not
quality may make us subconsciously raise the bar.
This is human nature. Let me share a recruiting double
jeopardy from my own recruiting background. In my
earlier days in technical recruiting, I was not as
familiar with technical backgrounds of my candidates and
I felt uncomfortable assessing candidate’s technical
skills. |
To ensure
that my candidates would meet the requirements I would screen
and assess my candidates on technical certifications of software
and technology applications. Did my positions require
certifications? No, not necessarily. But, for me it was a way
to affirm to myself that the candidate knew the technology.
However, the impact of my actions most likely excluded, narrowly
focused my pool or passed over some pretty good candidates who
were not certified in the process.
Unfamiliarly with background and experiences that are different
in nature not quality, raising the bar as a need to reassure
ourselves when we are unsure and affinities are some of the
subtle interactions in the interview process that impact our
ability to recruit a diverse employee base.
How
Preferences Limit Diversity
So how do
preferences limit diversity?
-
All of
those specifics – industry exposure, attendance at specific
educational institutions, and duration of experience narrow
one’s possibilities. It creates an overspecialization of
the job and the position that narrows your pool;
-
A
focus on preferences creates a recruiting industry that
competes fiercely for a small pool of diverse candidates
while leaving a larger pool of candidate’s whose
qualifications are different in nature, not quality
untouched;
-
A
preference based hiring criteria wants diverse candidates to
be similar instead of different; and
-
Diverse candidates are perceived as not meeting the job
requirements or not being the most qualified.
