HR teams should be looking into methods that have a better record of securing solid hires, such as structured interviews, which create a fairer and more systematic hiring process by measuring candidate responses to a consistent series of questions that are directly related to the roles in question. This filters out irrelevant information, minimizes the biases that can creep into interviews, and ultimately helps hiring managers determine which candidates will perform best on the job. It’s no surprise that a recent study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that “structured interviews emerged as the top-ranked selection procedure.”

As the benefits of structured interviews become increasingly clear, many HR professionals are still hesitant to adopt them. This is largely due to a cloud of myths that surround structured interviews, which obscure the benefits they offer. These myths stem from several fundamental misconceptions about how structured interviews operate, as well as antiquated notions about what the hiring process should look like.

1. Structured Interviews Aren’t Worth the Effort

For decades, researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that structured interviews are highly effective at predicting candidate success and avoiding the errors that plague other hiring methods. A study in the journal Judgment and Decision Making examined why hiring managers insist on using unstructured interviews, and found that interviewers form confident conclusions about candidates even when their answers are randomly generated nonsense. The researchers also discuss the process of “dilution,” whereby valuable information is concealed amid all the irrelevant information that’s being provided. The authors’ conclusion about unstructured interviews is blunt: “Our simple recommendation for those making screening decisions is not to use them.”

Considering the well-documented benefits of structured interviews and the liabilities of their unstructured counterparts, HR teams have many compelling reasons for using the former and avoiding the latter.

2. HR Teams Lack the Expertise

According to Criteria’s 2022 Hiring Benchmark Report, two-thirds of hiring professionals believe structured interviews lead to better hiring decisions, but less than a quarter say they use “highly structured interviews, with standardized questions and defined rating scales.” One of the reasons HR teams have been slow to adopt fully structured interviews is their misplaced conviction that doing so is too difficult. It’s true that structured interviews require more effort than unstructured interviews – questions have to be crafted in a way that will illuminate role-specific knowledge and skills, adaptability, and any other characteristics the company wants to measure. Then questions and answers have to be properly weighted on the basis of their relevance and predictive value.

However, there are many digital resources and guides that will help HR teams build structured interviews. Once teams have a firm grasp on the concept of structured interviewing, they will be able to develop questions and approaches that suit their hiring needs.

3. Structured Interviews are Robotic and Impersonal

Perhaps the most common complaint about structured interviews is that they’re cold and inhuman, but this is a caricature. There are many ways for hiring managers to make the structured interview process welcoming and less intimidating. First, they can have a normal discussion about the company’s values and culture, as well as the role. Second, they can explain why structured interviews are valuable for the company and the candidate: they give job seekers an opportunity to showcase their abilities on an even playing field. And third, hiring managers can encourage candidates to answer questions naturally and honestly, just as they would in any other interview.

The argument that structured interviews are too mechanical doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Aside from all the ways hiring managers can make the process more organic and comfortable, structured interviews already have an extensive record of success.

4. Candidates Dislike Structured Interviews

The quality of the candidate experience has never been more important. Criteria’s 2022 Candidate Experience Report found that many complaints about the hiring process will cause job seekers to abandon it altogether: almost one-third said they would exit the process if it was taking too long, while 53 percent would do the same if they received poor communication from the company or recruiter. While some hiring managers believe structured interviews will drive candidates away, they’re mistaken. When Google started conducting structured interviews, its hiring team reported an “uptick in candidate satisfaction in feedback scores for structured interview candidates.” Other research has found that candidates regard structured interviews as a fair method of evaluation.

Over three-quarters of employees and job seekers say a diverse workforce is an important factor in deciding where to work. When companies use structured interviews, they will show candidates that they’re taking active steps to minimize bias and discrimination – a key element of a healthy candidate experience.

5. Hiring Managers Will Resist

Criteria’s 2022 Hiring Benchmark Report found that a significant obstacle to conducting structured interviews is “getting hiring managers to comply” (cited by 40 percent of respondents). This expectation is understandable, as hiring managers are often the first to contend that structured interviews are awkward and unnatural. Company leaders and other members of the HR team can address their colleagues’ hesitation by pointing out that structured interviews will help hiring managers make better decisions. Hiring managers should also be involved in the development of rubrics and questions, which will give them a stake in the process.

The top three hurdles to implementing structured interviews are: defining the rubric for evaluating responses (47 percent), creating the interview questions (44 percent), and finding time to develop the process (44 percent). There’s no question that structured interviews require more preparation and analysis than casual conversations, but that’s why they’re far more objective and predictive than those conversations could ever be.

The post Five Myths About Structured Interviews appeared first on RecruitingDaily.

However, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is hardly waiting in the wings. Qualified candidates (no matter how hard to find) still want to work at an organization that prioritizes DEI, and organizations want to continue attracting the right talent.

After all, DEI has served as a cornerstone for successful companies, helping to capture more customers, increase creativity and innovation, and realize more profits.

But it’s easy to pump up DEI and throw these terms around, but let’s dig deeper. What’s actually working and what isn’t when it comes to the job candidate life cycle – from sourcing to making an offer?

Keep reading to learn more about how DEI is working (and isn’t working) in the hiring process.

Where We Stand

Recently, Lever released its 2022 DEI Through the Recruiting Lifecycle Report, finding that Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees were more likely to report hiring biases than white employees. Further, 62 percent of employees felt they were interviewed only to check the diversity requirement.

With the U.S. population more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before, this is really unacceptable. So, are DEI initiatives just not working? Or is progress terribly slow?

Here are our thoughts on DEI’s role in sourcing and interviewing.

DEI & Sourcing

Sourcing has looked a bit different these past couple of years, with remote and hybrid working arrangements becoming a prime focus. But, to meet their diversity goals, recruiting professionals must continue to refine their sourcing strategies to ensure a diverse and inclusive workforce – no matter where employees work.

When creating a diversity sourcing strategy, recruiting professionals develop a process to find talent with diverse backgrounds, experiences, educational levels, geographies, genders, languages, disabilities, and so on.

However, we tend to think only of changing our language in job descriptions or ads. And, while using inclusive language in job descriptions or ads is critical, we can’t stop there – we need to look beyond this threshold DEI requirement when sourcing talent.

Here are three helpful tips on sourcing diverse talent (beyond job descriptions and ads):

• Recruiting professionals can diversify their talent pools by using LinkedIn as more of a refined tool rather than as a blanket announcement that you’re hiring. For example, you can filter when reaching out to prospective candidates on LinkedIn by finding candidates who identify as “she” or “their.” Additionally, you can use hashtags to narrow your search, such as “Black History Month,” “Pride Month,” or “International Women’s Day.”
• Encourage your minority employees to refer potential job candidates – after all, people tend to refer people similar to themselves. So, create an internal employee referral program where typically underrepresented employees can refer qualified talent like them.
• Target candidates where they gather (in-person or online). By reaching out to different sources, such as HBCU colleges or online platforms that attract different populations, such as theblackwomenintech.com or the Hispanic / Latino Professionals Association.

DEI & Interviewing

Prioritizing DEI doesn’t stop at sourcing, of course. It must be intentionally carried through the hiring process, and that includes the interview phase.

Unintentional bias can sneak into the interview process, wreaking some level of havoc on your carefully-crafted DEI program. However, how can we counteract these biases if we don’t recognize that we all unconsciously have them?

For example, the types of names we hear (or see on a resume or job application) can lead to unintentional biases. A recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that job candidates who have “distinctively Black names” have a lower probability of moving forward in the hiring process than job candidates with “distinctively white names.”

One way recruiting professionals can address unconscious bias is to standardize the job interview. In non-standardized interviews, there’s typically no consistency across the interviews, even if there is a general set of questions to guide the process.

In standardized (or structured) interviews, on the other hand, candidates are asked the same interview questions in the same order. According to Harvard Business School Professor Francesca Gina, standardized interviews reduce bias by “focusing on the factors that have a direct impact on performance.”

As we’re still in the first quarter of 2023, now is the time for recruiting professionals to re-examine their DEI efforts in the hiring process to see what’s working and what’s not. But don’t just depend on your own review. Talk to your job candidates. Request feedback after they are offered a position (and even for those who aren’t).

And, finally, look at your data. Understanding your hiring metrics is critical to revising and refining your DEI efforts when recruiting.

The post Unintended Impacts: Where DEI Is Working and Where It Isn’t appeared first on RecruitingDaily.

Since 1976, every U.S. President has designated February as Black History Month. This recognition is not limited to the United States. Other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, also devote a month to celebrating Black histories. But is this enough? Simply put, no, it’s not. Especially in the workplace.

There’s no time like the present for companies to take an introspective look at their hiring, retention, and promotion practices to see if they’re prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Keep reading to learn more about where we collectively stand with DEI in 2023.

The Current State of DEI Affairs

It’s been a tough few years.  From the global pandemic to the war in Ukraine to an uncertain economic future, employers and employees both have faced challenges in (and out of) work.

But what does that mean for DEI in the workplace?

According to a recent report by Workhuman, “2023 will begin with a test of organizational commitment to the day-to-day work of inclusivity, equity, and diversity.”  According to Dr. Meisha-Ann Martin, Senior Director of Research and People Analytics at Workhuman, leaders are often tempted to cut certain priorities in the face of a looming recession – and DEI may be one of those.

And, apparently, Workhuman isn’t alone in this prediction.

According to the 2023 Monster Work Watch Report, 11 percent of employers say that DEI programs are “among the first to go when they are forced to cut costs,” coming in third behind organizational events and bonuses. Additionally, only 5 percent of recruiters say that DEI efforts are among their top three priorities.

So, where does this leave us as we move forward in 2023?

Embracing Organizational Transparency Will Be Key to Attracting and Retaining Diverse Employees

According to Workhuman’s January 2023 index, employees are questioning their leaders’ commitment to DEI.

For example, the index showed that:

• 17.1 percent of respondents are concerned about their future at their employer because of the lack of diverse leadership and voices.
• 21.1 percent of respondents are “questioning the intentions” of their leaders around social justice issues.
• 32.8 percent of respondents claimed they would consider leaving their employer if their DEI strategy doesn’t improve within the first six months of 2023, with employees of color reporting the highest percentages.

These results should not be taken lightly. Clearly, employers need to re-think their communication and branding strategies around DEI as we head into the second month of 2023.

If employers want to distinguish themselves when recruiting and retaining employees, they should focus on transparency around diversity at all levels of the organization – from eliminating unconscious biases in the hiring process to (truly) supporting employee resource groups – and everything in between.

In other words, they must show their true commitment to maintaining a diverse and equitable workforce at every point of the employee journey. Here are three ways employers can demonstrate transparency in the workplace in 2023.

3 Ways Employers Can Demonstrate Transparency in the Workplace

• Prioritize Open Communication:  For DEI initiatives to be effective, organizations must foster a supportive (and accepting) environment for open communication.  This will not only result in honest conversations around DEI, but it will also build trust between employers and employees.
• Increase Your Diversity Hiring: Employers should continue to increase diversity in their talent pools. The more diverse candidates are, the more a company will realize increased creativity, innovation, and profits – helping to stave off economic uncertainty.
• Don’t Just Know the Numbers; Incorporate Data Into Your DEI Strategy: Understanding industry and company data is one thing.  Incorporating it into a company’s DEI strategy and holding them accountable to their goals is another.  And with the need for additional transparency, companies can use this data to build a “DEI strategy scoreboard,” helping to build visibility.

In 2023, employers must continue to prioritize DEI with visible action and accountable transparency. Doing so can help employers deliver positive outcomes in recruitment, retention, and promoting talent in what looks to be a challenging economic landscape.

The post Celebrating Black History Month with a Look at DEI in 2023 appeared first on RecruitingDaily.

Jobs can evolve between the time a decision is made to hire someone, and the actual hiring process itself. Hiring managers might change job duties, hire someone for a different job than the one they are applying for, or abandon the job search altogether. While this might be frustrating for job hunters, employers do this in response to uncertainties in the workplace.

At a time when employers are struggling to find employees and many people are making career changes, knowing and understanding why this happens is crucial both to those hunting for new jobs and for people trying to fill some of the many jobs that have been vacated.

Why jobs change between posting and hiring

For our study on startup hiring, we interviewed more than 100 startup founders, managers and their employees, job seekers and experts from the startup community. We analyzed the interviews to understand how and why jobs changed in this period and found two main patterns.

We found that some employers deliberately use the hiring process to figure out the needs of their organization and define their new positions accordingly. In cases like this, employers know they need to hire someone, but they don’t yet have a clear idea of what that job will look like.

Unplanned job changes

In other cases, changes in job duties are not part of a planned process. Hiring managers might start with clear descriptions of the jobs they want to fill, fail to find candidates with the skills they’re looking for and end up redefining and reposting those jobs.

One CEO we interviewed did this after he received an overwhelming number of applications above the skill level needed for a personal assistant opening. He reposted the job as an office manager position, which required a higher credential, and quickly filled it.

Some managers also change their minds about what they want in the midst of the hiring process.

One startup in our study identified problems in their sales function in the middle of the hiring process, and ended up changing the job after applications had come in. They offered one candidate — who had applied for the original full-cycle sales manager position — the new job as a lead generator. He was promised that eventually he would move into the original sales job he had applied for.

Lastly, managers sometimes stumble across great candidates who fit different positions and fill those jobs instead. One startup in our study went to a job fair hoping to find a mid-level developer, and ended up hiring an entry-level developer and a marketing director instead.

Positive and negative impacts

We found that this evolution of job descriptions during the hiring process can have mixed consequences for both the hiring organizations themselves and new hires.

Some changes, like taking down and reposting jobs, can lead to positive consequences, like more stable jobs and incumbents who remain in the organizations. It can allow the organizations to learn, create a better organizational structure and even undertake new work.

This finding is consistent with past research that found changes in job descriptions can allow organizations to adapt to a variety of situations by developing structures and strategies that fit the circumstances.

However, we observed that most of the other types of job changes in our study resulted in negative consequences, like job instability, protracted conflict over job territory and the exit of the incumbent and dissolution of the job.

For example, the job candidate mentioned earlier who was offered a job different from the one he applied for ended up in a conflict with the sales director, and his job never transitioned to the full-cycle sales job he had been promised at hiring. He was gone within a year and his position was not filled.

This finding is consistent with past research that found that changing jobs around individual job holders can result in bias, favoritism, low morale and undesirable and unpredictable power struggles.

Hiring inequality

The dynamic nature of job descriptions has the potential to produce inequality in the hiring process, since not all job applicants understand that jobs can change between posting and hiring. Those who do understand will have a distinct advantage over those who don’t because they know to apply for jobs even when their preferences and qualifications don’t line up with the job posting. This knowledge may align with individual demographics.

This may be particularly bad for women and members of other under-represented groups who are less comfortable applying for jobs where they do not fit the stated qualifications. Prior evidence has shown that women tend to apply for the jobs they are already well-qualified for while men apply to the jobs they aspire to be qualified for.

Women also may be less likely than men to apply for jobs with the expectation that the jobs will evolve to fit their skills and preferences. If more women are aware of the results from our study, it could result in more applying for jobs that seem outside their area of expertise.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post When the Job Description Doesn’t Match the Job appeared first on RecruitingDaily.