Sherri Irvin Presidential Research Professor of Philosophy and WGS S creening systematic with clear criteria Template for each applicant with clearly defined criteria as specified in the job ad ID: 580887
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Evaluating Candidates and Identifying th..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Evaluating Candidates and Identifying the Short List
Sherri Irvin
Presidential Research Professor
of Philosophy and WGSSlide2
Screening: systematic with clear criteria
Template for each applicant with clearly defined criteria as specified in the job adRequirements
Other attributes that will count in favor of hiringSlide3
Obstacles to identifying excellent candidates
Implicit bias: tendency to underrate the credentials of women, candidates of color, people with disabilities, and other members of underrepresented groups
Rater drift: tendency for evaluators’ standards to shift over time, so similar credentials are rated differently Overemphasis on “fit”: tendency to discount the achievements of people whose methods, topics, or social identities are marginalized in the fieldMatthew Effect: tendency of further advantages to be heaped on those who have experienced early advantages, thereby inflating their credentialsSlide4
Recent research shows that race, gender & related factors play a major
role in hiringSlide5
Experiment on race and
hiring
Bertrand, Marianne, and Sendhil Mullainathan. “Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination.” The American Economic Review
94, no. 4 (2004): 991-1013.
Resumes with African-American names received callbacks 50% less often than those with white names.Slide6
Experiment on motherhood/gender and
hiring
Correll, Shelley J., and Stephen Benard. “Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112, no. 5 (2007): 1297-1339.
Resumes of mothers received significantly lower scores for competence, organizational commitment and lower salary and hiring recommendations (1.8x less).
Resumes of non-mothers received 2.1x the callbacks of mothers.Slide7
Effect of screened auditions
on success of female
musicians Goldin, Claudia, and Cecilia Rouse. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact
of “blind”
auditions on female musicians. No. w5903. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997.
U
se
of screens during auditions accounts for 1/3 of the increase in the number of female musicians in orchestras.Slide8
Experiment on gender
and hiring
in academic psychology
Steinpreis
, Rhea E., Katie A. Anders, and Dawn
Ritzke
.
“The
impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study
.”
Sex Roles
41, no. 7-8 (1999): 509-528.
Men received
a
positive hiring
recommendation >70% of the
time;
women received
a positive hiring recommendation only 55% of the time.
Gender of reviewer did not matter. Women and men discriminated equally
regarding
gender of candidate.Slide9
Experiment on hiring of student lab managers in university science labs
Moss-
Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. "Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 41 (2012): 16474-16479.
The female student was rated as less competent and less
hireable
. Faculty offered less mentoring and
proposed a 14% lower salary.
Gender and age
of reviewer did not matter. Women and men discriminated equally
regarding
gender of candidate.Slide10
Experiment on race and gender in finalist pools for academic jobs
Johnson, Stefanie K., David R.
Hekman, and Elsa T. Chan. “If there’s only one woman in your candidate pool, there’s statistically no chance she’ll be hired.” Harvard Business Review April 26, 2016.
“When there was only one woman or minority candidate in a pool of four finalists, their odds of being hired were statistically zero.
”
The odds increased dramatically with two women or two minority candidates
.Slide11
Implicit bias is exacerbated by
Evaluator factors:cognitive load
stresshurryfatigue, hunger, thirstbelief that one is unbiased (probably false)Evaluation task factors:vague criterialack of structurelack of accountabilitySlide12
StrategiesSlide13
Strategies: evaluator conditions
Improve evaluator conditionsLighten workloadProvide drinks and snacks
Make sure dossiers are easy to access and reviewSlide14
Strategies: counteracting bias
Have a member of the diversity committee (DC) available as a consultant on the searchDC member can flag dossiers with potential bias triggers for careful attention
Social identity (gender, race, LGBTQ identity, disability) where disclosed in the dossierMarginalized methods or topicsRationale: implicit bias sometimes functions by leading us not to notice achievementSlide15
Strategies: counteracting bias
Consider anonymizing
materials where feasibleThis must be done carefully (pronouns in letters, etc.)Can ask candidates to anonymize some materialsDC member can assist or verifyNot a cure-all: nature of research or organization membership sometimes suggests social identityBe aware that submitted materials may be affected by biasLetters of recommendationStudent evaluations of teachingSlide16
Strategies: accountability
Create clear, objective criteria and well structured ratings templatesPoints system where possible (if you deviate, be clear about why)Justify
short list by appeal to criteriaThis strategy helps with implicit bias, rater drift & overemphasis on “fit”Slide17
Getting to the final listSlide18
Initial interviews
Consider forgoing initial (long-list) interviewsInterview situation is not representative of actual job tasksSubmitted materials are most reliable source of info
Vividness of interview swamps more reliable infoTime and energy is better spent looking more carefully at candidate materialsSlide19
Initial interviews
If you decide to interview:Provide questions in advanceAsk same questions of all candidates
Provide consistent interviewing conditionsInterviewer behavior affects performanceRank-order candidates prior to interviewIf you change your ranking, be clear about whyWhat new info did you get that is relevant to criteria?Slide20
Final thoughts about the Matthew Effect
Access to opportunities is facilitated by privilege (race, gender, economic class, etc.)These opportunities tend to snowball
careful mentorship in undergrad top-ranked graduate school invitation to co-author cushy post-doc three publicationsSlide21
Experiment on which student queries receive responses
Milkman, Katherine L.,
Modupe Akinola, and Dolly Chugh. "What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations." Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 6 (2015): 1678.
Queries from women and students of color are far more likely to be ignored, and requests for meetings more likely denied. The effect is worse in
disciplines where pay is higher.
Discrimination was just as bad in
fields with higher ratios of women and faculty of color.Slide22
Final thoughts about the Matthew Effect
As you design criteria, look for ways of assessing merit that do not simply codify the results of privilegeOne publication that challenges traditional assumptions, published during a 4/4 teaching load, v. three conventional publications published during a teaching-free post-doc…