Creating a Fair Interview Process for All Candidates

Three unpopular ways companies can remove bias from their hiring process. 👯 More interviewers Those posts that go viral about hiring someone after a single coffee chat? Or mocking hiring managers that need a panel ? That's all bias - decisions based on gut instincts instead of with objective criteria. Instead, involve multiple interviewers with different perspectives - a peers and key stakeholders may have different interactions with the new team member, and their input can help you make a better decision. 🔎 This is backed up research from Harvard that shows that structured interviews with multiple interviewers are 2x more predictive of success in the role than unstructured ones. 🪧 Assess skills I know skills assessments aren't popular, and many people claim that they won't engage in a process that includes them. But lots of people can talk the talk and make up examples in interviews. It's harder to fake hard skills. If you're hiring a financial analyst, ask them to build a model using dummy data. If you're hiring a social media manager, ask them to create a plan for a campaign for a fake product. Work samples are great as well! And then dig in with questions to fully understand what they did, why they made the choices they made, etc. to ensure they didn't just submit something where someone else did the work. 🔎 And the research backs it up: the Aberdeen Group did a study that showed that those who completed skills assessments had a 36% higher rate of retention in their roles than those who didn't. 💰 Don't negotiate Negotiation increases inequity. When companies are big on negotiation, hiring managers will suggest things like "let's go in at X so when they negotiate we can bump up to Y." Then the candidates who don't ask for more end up underpaid. It promotes playing games and the people who are afraid to push are the ones who will be negatively impacted. Instead, companies should be transparent about their salary ranges and how compensation is determined, and then apply those practices consistently across all hires. Adjusting offers should be reserved for the rare cases where a candidate brings new information to the table around their qualifications or ability to have an impact, or the company realizes they're misaligned to the market. Now, I do know that many companies don't operate this way so it never hurts to ask, but just know that if a company comes up a lot with their offer after you negotiate, that's a signal that they were happy to try to lowball you. 🔎 And again, research backs this up: countless studies from McKinsey to Leanin to Harvard show that there are differences in who negotiates and in how negotiation is perceived, and this hurts people from marginalized groups. Like I said, these aren't necessarily popular ideas - they are more work for companies AND candidates. But they are research-backed ways to make hiring more equitable. And that's something we should all support.

Dwight Jackson, a Black man, claims that the Shinola Hotel denied him a job interview because of his race. He knows this, he says, because he reapplied for the same job at the same hotel with the same resume ... with one key difference. He changed his name to John Jebrowski. While the hotel didn't offer Jackson an interview, it did offer one to Jebrowski. That, Jackson says in his recently filed lawsuit, is race discrimination. Inherent bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that unconsciously affect our understanding, actions, and decisions. These biases can silently influence hiring decisions, leading to discrimination based on characteristics such as race. Name bias is one example of how inherent biases manifest themselves. What can an employer do to prevent these inherent biases from infecting hiring decisions? Here are 7 suggestions: 1. Implement blind hiring practices by removing identifying information from resumes and applications. 2. Develop a structured interview process with standardized questions for all candidates. 3. Use scorecards to evaluate responses consistently. 4. Train hiring managers on recognizing and mitigating inherent biases. 5. Form diverse interview panels to provide multiple perspectives on each candidate. 6. Analyze hiring data and practices to identify and address patterns of bias. 7. Define clear, job-related criteria for evaluating candidates. Eliminating inherent bias is critical to create fair and inclusive hiring practices, which in turn helps create diverse and inclusive workplaces. It also helps eliminate the risk of expensive and nasty discrimination lawsuits.

I used to think the hardest part of hiring was sourcing candidates. Turns out, most firms lose the best talent before interviews even begin, because of subtle bias in job descriptions and unstructured interviews. Here’s what I learned: 1. Unbiased Job Descriptions Matter Gender-neutral language: Replace “he/she” with “they/their,” and swap masculine/feminine-coded words for neutral alternatives like “goal-oriented” or “team-player.” Clear, accessible language: Avoid jargon, acronyms, and long lists of “must-haves” that unintentionally filter out qualified candidates. Inclusive titles: Use “software engineer” instead of “rockstar coder,” “firefighter” instead of “fireman.” 2. Structured Interviews Reduce Bias Standardized questions: Ask every candidate the same questions in the same order to avoid “likability bias.” Scoring rubrics: Grade answers objectively on merit, not gut feeling. Behavioral + situational questions: Focus on skills and past performance, not shared backgrounds. Diverse panels & limited chit-chat: Multiple perspectives + minimal small talk reduce affinity bias. Here’s the kicker: these simple practices don’t just make hiring fairer, they make it smarter. Firms using inclusive, structured approaches attract more qualified, diverse candidates, shorten time-to-hire, and build teams that actually perform. If you’re still relying on old-school job posts and free-flow interviews, you’re leaving talent and revenue on the table.