Tools for fairness: Increased structure in the selection process reduces discrimination

Wolgast, Sima; Bäckström, Martin; Björklund, Fredrik

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189512

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As previous studies suggest, there is individual variability in interpreting personorganization fit from information on qualification such as previous work experiences. We especially noted how respondents assumed person-organization fit through the limited information given on the CV, confirming previous studies that suggest a structured form of recruitment processes to eliminate as much bias and discrimination as possible (Noon, 2012;Wolgast et al, 2017;Feng et al, 2020;Rivera, 2020). Moreover, dialog shows that when the respondents discuss diversity in the organization, they pay more attention to gender (female) and a Black CV and not to other types of diversity such as non-Black racial groups and ethnicity, which might be explained by social desirability as discussed above.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…This categorization increases the risk of screening discrimination ( Derous and Ryan, 2019 ). Studies in Sweden also show that working with a structure procedure of recruitment lead to an improvement in the selection of more competent applicants, however there was no clear results whether structured recruitment counter discrimination ( Wolgast et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“We choose this CV because we choose diversity” – What do eye movements say about the choices recruiters make?

Osanami Törngren,

Schütze,

Van Belle

et al. 2024

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionA large body of research has established a consensus that racial discrimination in CV screening occurs and persists. Nevertheless, we still know very little about how recruiters look at the CV and how this is connected to the discriminatory patterns. This article examines the way recruiters view and select CVs and how they reason about their CV selection choices, as a first step in unpacking the patterns of hiring discrimination. Specifically, we explore how race and ethnicity signaled through the CV matter, and how recruiters reason about the choices they make.MethodsWe recorded data from 40 respondents (20 pairs) who are real-life recruiters with experiences in recruitment of diverse employees in three large Swedish-based firms in the finance and retail sector in two large cities. The participating firms all value diversity, equity and inclusion in their recruitment. Their task was to individually rate 10 fictious CVs where race (signaled by face image) and ethnicity (signaled by name) were systematically manipulated, select the top three candidates, and then discuss their choices in pairs to decide on a single top candidate. We examined whether respondents’ choices were associated with the parts of the CV they looked at, and how they reasoned and justified their choices through dialog.ResultsOur results show that non-White CVs were rated higher than White CVs. While we do not observe any statistically significant differences in the ratings between different racial groups, we see a statistically significant preference for Chinese over Iraqi names. There were no significant differences in time spent looking at the CV across different racial groups, but respondents looked longer at Polish names compared to Swedish names when presented next to a White face. The dialog data reveal how respondents assess different CVs by making assumptions about the candidates’ job and organizational fit through limited information on the CVs, especially when the qualifications of the candidates are evaluated to be equal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“We choose this CV because we choose diversity” – What do eye movements say about the choices recruiters make?

Osanami Törngren,

Schütze,

Van Belle

et al. 2024

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study of discrimination in hiring practices found that adding structure to selection processes reduced bias in terms of racial discrimination ( Wolgast et al, 2017 ). Hence, a potentially greater structure in the assessment of career disruption may increase equity in funding decisions, although care needs to be taken that greater structure does not mean more paperwork for those with disruption.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers

Barnett

Page

Dyer

et al. 2022

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: When researchers' careers are disrupted by life events-such as illness or childbirth-they often need to take extended time off. This creates a gap in their research output that can reduce their chances of winning funding. In Australia, applicants can disclose their career disruptions and peer reviewers are instructed to make appropriate adjustments. However, it is not clear if and how applicants use career disruption sections or how reviewers adjust and if they do it consistently. Methods: To examine career disruption, we used surveys of the Australian health and medical research community. We used both a random sample of Australian authors on PubMed and a non-random convenience sample. Results: Respondents expressed concerns that sharing information on career disruption would harm their chances of being funded, with 13% saying they have medical or social circumstances but would not include it in their application, with concerns about appearing 'weak'. Women were more reluctant to include disruption. There was inconsistency in how disruption was adjusted for, with less time given for those with depression compared with caring responsibilities, and less time given for those who did not provide medical details of their disruption. Conclusions: The current system is likely not adequately adjusting for career disruption and this may help explain the ongoing funding gap for senior women in Australia. Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellowship (Barnett).

show abstract

“…To address these challenges, an important step is to enhance the structure of the evaluation and selection procedure. For example, Wolgast et al (2017) showed that using tools for systematizing information about the applicants could help in mitigating biases and in selecting more competent applicants.…”

Section: Intervention For Mitigating Gender Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender equity in hiring: examining the effectiveness of a personality-based algorithm

Kubiak,

Efremova,

Baron

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionGender biases in hiring decisions remain an issue in the workplace. Also, current gender balancing techniques are scientifically poorly supported and lead to undesirable results, sometimes even contributing to activating stereotypes. While hiring algorithms could bring a solution, they are still often regarded as tools amplifying human prejudices. In this sense, talent specialists tend to prefer recommendations from experts, while candidates question the fairness of such tools, in particular, due to a lack of information and control over the standardized assessment. However, there is evidence that building algorithms based on data that is gender-blind, like personality - which has been shown to be mostly similar between genders, and is also predictive of performance, could help in reducing gender biases in hiring. The goal of this study was, therefore, to test the adverse impact of a personality-based algorithm across a large array of occupations.MethodThe study analyzed 208 predictive models designed for 18 employers. These models were tested on a global sample of 273,293 potential candidates for each respective role.ResultsMean weighted impact ratios of 0.91 (Female-Male) and 0.90 (Male-Female) were observed. We found similar results when analyzing impact ratios for 21 different job categories.DiscussionOur results suggest that personality-based algorithms could help organizations screen candidates in the early stages of the selection process while mitigating the risks of gender discrimination.

show abstract

Tools for fairness: Increased structure in the selection process reduces discrimination

Cited by 9 publications

References 43 publications

“We choose this CV because we choose diversity” – What do eye movements say about the choices recruiters make?

“We choose this CV because we choose diversity” – What do eye movements say about the choices recruiters make?

Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers

Gender equity in hiring: examining the effectiveness of a personality-based algorithm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About