Recruitment is something else...
Recruitment is something else...
Newsletter 12
Spicy Vibes 🌶️
Giving you an alternative perspective
I'm back, and it's been quite a journey! I've been occupied with work and life, and I'm currently getting ready to attend my best friend's wedding in India (dance pending). However, I couldn't leave without sharing another edition of A Load of Orgness 🫠 with you. Amidst all the hustle and bustle, I recently participated in two panels about DE&I and recruitment. It's apparent that this field has tremendous potential to reshape organizations. However, many people are using the same old methods and expecting different outcomes, and if I hear one more person say it's a pipeline issue, I'll go crazy. Let's put that aside for now because I have a lot of thoughts, and we're just getting started. In this edition, I'm going to share some of my perspectives on hiring.
Mythmaking, meritocracy stanning.
The pipeline problem is the belief that insufficient numbers of marginalised folks graduate within STEM (and other industries), thus not producing enough qualified candidates. This mindset has so many issues; regarding an organisation, it absolves them from having an equitable recruitment process. A.K.A, the problem is someone else’s to fix. However, we know this is not the truth; a big part of underrepresentation in organisations is not the pipeline but broken processes that reaffirm toxic beliefs of underrepresented folks, such as homogenous sourcing practices that rely on internal networks, further scaling up inequity. It is all a bit of a mess.
The pipeline problem is a myth of the powerful; it supports stereotypes and reinforces meritocratic beliefs; thus, due to adverse outcomes for marginalised people in the hiring process, it is easy to conclude that they must not be as component as those from dominant identity groups. It also imbues a colonial mindset of dominance and philanthropy, which tokenises marginalised folks when hired as exceptional. Essentially, this so-called problem reaffirms stereotypes (negative and positive) of particular communities and embeds into the process via interpersonal interactions.
The long and the short of it is that the pipeline problem places an untold burden on those from marginalised communities to shapeshift and do better to be considered worthy of a career rather than holding up a mirror to power. If anything, some might say that hiring as we know it today is an outcome of the phantasm of meritocracy.
Respect recruiters, respect candidates.
As I reflect on hiring, it makes me think how unhinged most processes are. I have only been through two outlined hiring processes that did not deviate. I want to challenge you to count how many times you have experienced this type of hiring process. My guess is less than five.
It is far too familiar for organisations to have haphazard hiring processes, consequently wasting organisational resources and candidates' time and favour. Most organisations' recruitment processes are driven by hiring managers, not those who are recruiting experts (nobody come for me); as a result, one candidate has six stages, another has nine stages, and both are hired. It is unclear who made those choices and why? I have so much respect and love for recruiters; they work at the coal face and under extreme demands on mission-critical work. However, the issue of power dynamics comes into play. As a recruiter, your knowledge and expertise are only as credible as those who respect and listen to you (a bit like DE&I folks - shared struggle here). Without respect, it is easy to be a leaf on the wind and say yes even to bad practices, particularly when there is a power differential in seniority and networks. Hence, we have multistage marathon interviews.
Multistage interviews can be problematic as recruiters may pick up erroneous signals from previous rounds or strange feedback, leading to compounding bias. This process often deviates from the core competencies of the role and becomes more focused on likability, which only benefits those from dominant identity groups. Unfortunately and unfairly, individuals from marginalised backgrounds tend to appear as less likeable or less of a team player due to societal biases. Research has also shown that Black Americans who sound more stereotypically black are also perceived to be more racially phenotypical and associated with higher rates of stereotypes (Kurinec & Weaver, 2021).
To put it briefly, during job interviews, candidates from dominant identity groups are often favoured due to their perceived likeability (in-groupness), which further highlights the out-groupness of marginalised groups. It's worth noting that all candidates use some form of impression management (IM) tactics during interviews. However, interviewers with a higher level of social dominance orientation tend to find entitlement IM tactics (such as sharing achievements) to be threatening and challenging, particularly when used by marginalized communities (Derous, 2017).
I feel cheated.
We will end with my final point—my suitcase won't pack itself—about blind screening as a panacea to all our hiring problems. Something I have mused on regarding blind screening is akin to intersectionality. As we remove one bias in the system, we can inadvertently create new and unknown biases further downstream. Walk with me as I piece together my thoughts on a Sunday afternoon.
When it comes to acknowledging bias in names, it's important to call it what it is: xenophobia, sexism, ageism, or racism. But what happens when a recruiter comes face to face with a candidate who challenges their assumptions? The recruiter or the team might feel a sense of shock rushing to the fore as they have made assumptions about the candidate, rightly or wrongly. The feeling of shock might also bring a feeling of mistrust - which may transfer to the candidate. The recruiter might wish to realign their sense of reality by seeking information to confirm their beliefs of some wrongness in the world. Or their feeling of shock might lead to tokenising marginalised candidates when they appear. I have little to no evidence regarding this; however, I am piecing together some disparate social science and my experiences of the world. It is like blind dating: you read the bio, build your world, and then face reality. Sometimes, everyone wins; sometimes, you have this odd feeling that things were crafted to mislead, even if they are not. Ultimately, it is easier to uphold bigotry than it is to look inward and say I am problematic AF. In essence, the bias is not removed; it is made new or compounded elsewhere in the process.
Wow, we are at the end, folks - this has been a wild and thrilling ride. I started this article thinking hmm, I am going to share four tips for hiring that enable equity and then this happened. At times, writing is what it is! I also realised as I wrote this I have so many thoughts and feelings about recruitment and how it is not a vibe. Most organisations are still treading the same tired ground and making the same mistakes while screaming DE&I. I am not so binary or cynical to believe they don’t care because I know care does not lead to action or even having the correct knowledge to make a change - it is just care! The challenge is how much you are willing to change and who will risk their organisational capital to build a better future. I can’t tell you the answer, but I understand capitalism's traps and how it has got us all down bad; even when we think we are winning, we are losing touch with our humanity to hold on to what precious few possessions we have. And with that, remember, small steps add up to huge distances - you got this!
🔊 Spread the word
So, with all your newly acquired knowledge, how about taking me for an outing on LinkedIn or stunting on a colleague? Don’t forget, likes are free, so press my buttons…
DEI is on the table 👨🏿🏫
A.I. summarises a paper
Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., & Bernstein, M. J. (2017). Expectations of social inclusion and exclusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00112
The paper "Expectations of Social Inclusion and Exclusion" dives into the human desire to be included and the impact of exclusion on our thoughts and behaviors. Here's a breakdown of the key points:
Default Expectation: We generally expect to be included in social interactions. This makes sense because social connection is crucial for our well-being.
The Pain of Exclusion: Being excluded is a negative experience with consequences. It can be seen as a threat to our sense of belonging and value.
Built-in Cues: Researchers suggest we have a sort of "sociometer" that constantly monitors for signs of inclusion or exclusion.
Impact on Perception: When we feel excluded, our perception can be altered. We might pay more attention to positive social cues and become more sensitive to rejection.
Motivational Shift: Exclusion can also trigger a desire to reconnect and form new friendships. It might even make us more receptive to genuine signs of acceptance.
Focus of the Paper: The paper highlights the importance of our expectations of inclusion. These expectations can influence how we react to being excluded, both emotionally and behaviorally.
Overall, the paper explores the human need for social connection and how our expectations of inclusion shape our experiences in social settings.
Tip Time 💡
Your interview process is too long; cut it down to four stages. You’re welcome.
