A guide to unbiased screening, insightful interviews and positive candidate experience.
In a world in which we battle for scare talent (particularly in certain sectors), it is crucial to develop an attraction strategy that encourages the right applicants with the right skills and experience to apply for roles within our organisation.
The first step, therefore, is to source candidates with care – developing a clear understanding of what we are looking for and basing our job description on this insight.
But this will be all for nothing if we shortlist poorly, falling foul of our biases.
Most organisations still compare applicants’ CVs and covering letters, checking each person’s skills, experience, qualifications and interests against job descriptions.
However, some use ‘screening questions’ that place less emphasis on education and work history, while others only refer to CVs later on in the selection process, when they have already met the candidates and can look beyond superficial impressions.
Since the detail contained in a CV can fuel our conscious or unconscious biases, anonymising them helps to level the playing field – removing photos and addresses, plus details of gender, age, ethnicity and other identifiers that may sway us in one direction or another.
There are flaws and drawbacks to blind CVs – for example, it’s impossible to mask all information, some hidden details (such as maternity leave) can help to explain gaps in employment, and it can prevent us from identifying minority candidates when we are actively seeking to hire them. But the idea is that they enable us to stay focused on a candidate’s specific credentials rather than their demographic characteristics.
Research shows that, on average, British citizens from ethnic minority backgrounds have to send 60% more job applications to get a positive response from employers than their white counterparts (90% more for people of Middle Eastern or North African heritage).
Even a candidate’s name can impact on their success, with ‘white-sounding’ names giving applicants a proven advantage.
Having a diverse panel review CVs can also help to protect against screening bias. Another option, of course, is to supplement or replace CVs with digital alternatives such as bespoke application forms (designed to give better insights into candidates’ values, aspirations and strengths) and video-applications – where we can find out more about a candidate in 60 seconds than we can by wading through a written outline of their work history.
Setting pre-interview skills assessments, psychometric tests or challenges (sometimes gamified) allows us to compare practical capabilities rather than credentials. For some creative roles, we could also request digital portfolios, or we might conduct work sample tests that require individuals to perform tasks which are physically and/or psychologically similar to those they would experience on the job. These help us to verify candidates’ claims about their skills and experience.
Unilever, for example, has digitised its graduate recruitment process, replacing CVs with its own online form which applicants can complete using their LinkedIn profile. They then gain access to 12 skills-assessment games which they can play anonymously from home in around 20 minutes, with gameplay feedback provided after 48 hours.
Next, candidates are asked to record a video interview on their laptop or smartphone –answering pre-recorded questions, with answers assessed by a machine learning algorithm; those who reach the final stage are invited to a Discovery Centre to work through real-life business challenges and see for themselves what it’s like to work at Unilever.
Every applicant receives real-time feedback throughout the process and participates in a varied and inspiring experience designed to attract tech-savvy talent and to be fun, fast and authentic.
Tech is now increasingly integrated into the candidate journey, from chatbots fielding enquiries to algorithms screening CVs for key words. The aim is to speed up the hiring process and improve consistency of decision-making while reducing the discrimination associated with human biases.
However, artificial intelligence (AI) systems learn to make predictions based on data, so predictions are generally more accurate for groups which have more data available – and can reinforce the status quo as a result. Amazon found this to its cost in 2018, when it abandoned a computer programme that was found to discriminate against female candidates on this basis. There is also a risk that some candidates will learn how to game the system.
The shift to AI-powered recruiting may be inevitable (and arguably preferable), but in the meantime, most organisations still use a more traditional, human-centred interview process to assess applicants’ skill sets and behaviours, and their likelihood of fitting into the business.
Our interviewing strategy should be clearly defined from the outset: how many rounds will we have? Will interviews be in person or via phone or video? Who will be involved, and who will be making the final decision? If we haven’t already done so, we should also identify the format/s we will use, liaise with appropriate attendees and formulate competency-based questions.
The typical employer will interview between six and 10 people for a role, and hold up to three rounds of interviews, with two the most common. Exceeding four rounds is likely to lead to interview fatigue (for candidates and interviewers).
For example, Google used to subject its applicants to more than a dozen interviews. However, it reduced them to a maximum of four, having conducted research showing that after the fourth interview, interviewers had 86% confidence in the candidate, from which point confidence rose by less than 1% with each additional interview. In fact, 94% of the time, the hiring decision remained the same whether the candidates were interviewed four times or 12 times.
To elicit new insights, interview rounds are likely to vary in format: one might be a telephone pre-screen interview, followed by a panel interview and a one-to-one with the hiring manager.
A UK study suggests that the more people who participate in rating candidates, the more likely we are to correctly identify the best person, though we obviously need to strike a balance between making accurate decisions and overwhelming candidates. The researchers recommended having at least three reviewers to vet each candidate: for example, the hiring manager, a member of the recruiting team and a member of the leadership team.
Letting all candidates know what the process will involve and what to expect is good practice. We should give as much information as possible – from the dress code and clear directions to the venue (or video-conferencing instructions) to the lead interviewer’s name, and even the list of the questions we intend to ask. This benefits candidates who are neurodiverse, but also helps everyone else, reducing pre-interview stress and removing unnecessary barriers to performance.
Providing excess detail is preferable to leaving things open to interpretation. For example, we should explain what we mean by “smart casual”, describe how the entry system works and let people know that they will have to report to reception before heading up to the third floor for their interview. We could also outline the interviewing format and the reasons behind our choice.
In structured interviewing, we use the same questions for every candidate in the same order, which tends to make them fair and consistent, helping to reduce personal bias.
These interviews are easy to replicate, allowing us to compare multiple candidates. The downsides are that they involve advance planning, can feel a little impersonal, and limit opportunities to explore subjects or issues in depth.
Unstructured interviews are conversational and involve building a dialogue/rapport with the candidate, and having a free-flowing discussion. While these may be more flexible, spontaneous and relaxed than their structured counterparts, they can also be less objective and less easy to compare, though they may be suitable for second interviews.
With either format, we should clearly steer away from asking anything relating to the candidate’s age, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs or personal circumstances. It is not acceptable to ask a candidate if they’re planning to have children, or to quiz them on their retirement plans.
Just as when writing our job description, we must remain sensitive to our conscious and unconscious biases and mindful of anti-discrimination legislation. Where possible, involving a diverse panel of interviewers can help level the playing field for atypical candidates.
Various interviewing techniques are available, but behavioural interviewing is widely believed to be the most accurate predictor of a candidate’s future performance. It has a structured format and is based on an analysis of the requirements of the job, reducing bias and ambiguity because candidates are evaluated on job-related questions.
Essentially, behavioural interviewing focuses on a candidate’s past experiences by asking them to provide specific examples of how they have demonstrated certain behaviours, knowledge, skills and abilities. Answers should reveal their actual level of experience and their potential to handle similar situations in our organisation; the most accurate predictor of future performance is past performance in similar situations.
Remember that while the interview is a two-way process, the ratio of conversation should be 80:20 in favour of the interviewee.
To gain relevant responses, we must ensure our questions relate to the behavioural traits we are looking for, also making them open, so that they elicit more than a “yes” or “no” response; they should be probing, but not designed to catch people out. “Would you rather fight one horse-sized duck, or 100 duck-sized horses?” might be a quirky thing to ask friends in the pub, but it’s not productive in a job interview.
Instead, questions should be designed to generate practical insights into candidates’ transferrable skills and competencies. For example:
To find out more detail, we can ask follow-up questions such as:
While our structured behavioural questions will form the majority of the interview, these will be topped and tailed by more generic questions (“Tell me about your last job and why you wanted to leave”; “Are you still interested in the job based on the information provided during the interview?”).
We should finish by giving the candidate an opportunity to ask questions and provide them with a clear idea of when and how they will be notified about our decision. Be sure to find out their thoughts on the role and salary package, and to ascertain details of their notice period. We need all the relevant information at our fingertips before making any offers.
When weighing up the pros and cons of our shortlisted candidates, we can use our selection criteria to make a more objective choice (with colleagues, if we are part of a panel). Instincts have a place in decision-making as long as we can separate our biases from genuine red flags (for example, inconsistent answers or poor feedback from other people who interacted with the candidate, such as the receptionist).
Keeping all candidates in the loop regarding progress is a courtesy which also protects the reputation of the company and ensures we don’t burn our boats, should our top candidate refuse the position. Many talented people have other offers on the table.
When we’re ready to make a job offer (subject to conditions), it’s advisable to do this via phone or video call, in order to talk through the terms of employment and establish whether these are acceptable, following up in writing.
At this point we should take advice from our HR colleagues or advisors to ensure we are acting legally and including all the paperwork required within the correct timescale. Reference checking is an important part of the process and shouldn’t be overlooked in our hurry to get somebody on board.
We should also break the bad news to unsuccessful candidates in a timely fashion – ideally via phone, so that they can request feedback. We may wish them to reapply for future jobs or simply to leave the process with a positive perception of our organisation.
Staying mindful of candidate experience at all points during the selection process will keep the reputation of our organisation intact. This must carry through to the induction and onboarding process, where we have a chance to make a positive lasting impression on the person we have hired, building the foundations of a mutually beneficial relationship.
Outline two ways in which we can help to 'level the playing field' when comparing candidates.
Explain what we mean by 'behavioural interviewing' and how it can be beneficial.
Reflect on your current interviewing strategy and how you might improve this to minimise bias and enhance candidate experience.