A webinar with Amberjack and ISE explores the CIPD’s review of studies on fair selection.
There’s lots to learn from CIPD’s 2023 scientific review of 46 studies on fair selection created in collaboration with the Institute for Employment Studies.
Full of practical recommendations, the review takes an in-depth look at an incredibly important topic, especially in the early careers industry and for high volume recruiters.
Amberjack’s Head of Assessment and Chartered Psychologist, Martin Kavanagh, explored the evidence in our latest webinar with the Institute of Student Employers.
Stereotype threat
A key point that struck Amberjack when reading through the CIPD’s review is the impact stereotype threat can have in an assessment process. It’s such an important consideration that, before diving into candidate perception, we would like to consider Stereotype Threat in more detail.
Stereotype threat is defined as a disruptive psychological state experienced when someone feels at risk for confirming a negative stereotype associated with their social identity, such as race, gender, ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, etc.
By inadvertently triggering stereotype threats, you can have a big impact on the fairness of your process.
It’s important to carefully consider your assessment activities and how you present them within your recruitment process, to ensure you are getting the best out of all your candidates.
Research and practical suggestions
Clarity and relevance
Diving into the CIPD’s research in full, we can see that perceived job relevance by candidates has a big impact on fairness perceptions.
Making a clear link between what you’re assessing, how you’re assessing it, and why this is relevant, is particularly key for perceptions of fairness.
This is most relevant at the early stages of an assessment process. Off-the-shelf cognitive ability tests or situational judgement tests (SJTs) are often used upfront in high volume processes to reduce candidate numbers to a more manageable level. However, if the candidate can’t see a link between what they’re being asked to do and the role they’re applying for, that can have a big impact on their perceptions of fairness and subsequently their likelihood of staying in the process.
Communicating the process and a clear explanation of the stages is vital to fairness – but keep in mind stereotype threat.
Careful consideration of language
The proactive consideration of language is important in candidate feedback.
Organisations often focus feedback on avoiding candidate comebacks or legal challenges, resulting in unnatural communications and candidates leaving a process feeling like they haven’t reached a good outcome.
Feedback can be provided in a safe, fair way whilst still providing detail and value to candidates. Commonly, we see… ‘you were rejected for these reasons’ rather than mention of what a candidate actually did well.
By providing information on what the top candidates did to get through along with advice, you can help an unsuccessful candidate find value and provide actionable feedback.
This consideration shouldn’t just exist around the words and phrases you use in your communications, but also around the timing.
Research suggests that giving candidates a decision and feedback as soon possible after the assessment process, increases the perception of fairness.
The longer the decision is withheld, the more the perception of fairness decreases – with one exception: avoid sharing your decision on the very same day as the assessment.
Technology and AI
Increasingly, candidates believe that they will be scored automatically by AI, rather than by a human, especially in the case of video interviews. If you’re using manual screening, tell your candidates! This easy action can do wonders for your perceived fairness.
Another hot topic in this area is the face-to-face vs. virtual assessment debate. Early career talent like an engaging face-to-face experience as well as the convenience of being able to complete an assessment at home.
It’s difficult trying to satisfy both audiences. There is however one important consideration to be aware of: the same exercise given in a face-to-face environment, was more harshly scored in a virtual setting.
Reflection
Overall, the CIPD’s research into perceived fairness in an assessment process provides a comprehensive understanding of candidate perceptions and how these can be impacted by even the smallest considerations.
With a lot to think about, it can be difficult to consider every single aspect of your assessment process which could be creating perceptions of unfairness. This is where we come in. To discover how Amberjack can help evaluate, design, and optimise your assessment process, our Assessment Services can be found here.
You may also be interested in…
How Teach First is achieving a more equitable selection model
5 quick wins to improve your assessment centre experience in 2024/25
0 Comments