Now a new study by the University of Sussex has found that discrimination occurs when candidates refer to membership of gay associations in their CVs.
But not in the direction you might expect.
400 participants were shown fictitious CVs. One was clearly from a lesbian, one from a gay man and the other two from a straight man and woman. The CVs were identical in terms of qualifications and experience except for a reference to membership of a gay professional association.
The researchers found that female managers were more likely to pick gay and lesbian candidates whereas men were more likely to pick straight candidates.
Benjamin Everly from the university’s School of Management & Economics said the findings suggest employers should consider carefully who was making their recruitment decisions. “These results show that bias against gay men and lesbians is much more nuanced than previous work suggests“. He could have said that there is evidence of bias against heterosexual candidates, by women, but that might not have sounded so PC.
He thought “Hiring decisions made by teams of both men and women could lead to less biased decisions”. He though that the findings could influence when and how gay men and lesbians disclosed their sexual orientation in the recruitment process.
The report in the Times doesn’t say what job the fictitious candidates were applying for or from what sectors the 400 participants came from. It’s possible they were students at the Business School but I don’t know that.
However research at Anglia Ruskin University suggested that at graduate entry level gay men received the fewest invitations of interview in traditional male occupations such as accountancy, banking,finance, and management and lesbians received fewer invitations for shortlisting in traditionally female occupations like social care, social services and charity work.
Recruiters are notoriously bad as selecting the right person for the job and the whole process is about discriminating against unsuitable candidates. Many people in recruitment have not been trained appropriately (worryingly the Sussex study refers to managers not HR people) and line managers are often the worst as seen recently in the steakhouse incident.
Leaving sexual orientation aside (and is Sussex going to replicate the research across the whole gender fluid/LGBT spectrum?) men and women have been shown to be discriminated against just on the basis of their looks, with women rejecting attractive female candidates and insecure men rejecting good-looking men.
Interestingly the recruitment process for the new head of the Metropolitan Police included psychometric testing, probably for the first time. (Don’t know what they used but hope it wasn’t the MBTI or DISC).
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) asked 2,000 executives what they looked for in candidates when recruiting.
More than half said they were more likely to employ someone who had done charity work. This was a higher proportion than were impressed by sporting achievements or people being physically fit.
The rationale behind companies liking charity workers was simple. The skills they learned doing voluntary work brought in an extra £36,000 to the companies. They also thought volunteers were more caring, reliable and driven.
And those members of staff who had done voluntary work earned about £1,000 a year more.
Some volunteers said it also made them more attractive to the opposite sex and helped them get dates.
The BHF said “Volunteers are absolutely essential to the success of the charity and play an integral part in fighting coronary get disease. We couldn’t continue our life-saving work without them”
New research from America suggests that insecure bosses are less likely to employ good-looking men because they fear looking bad by comparison.
Attractive men are generally considered more competent (unlike women of which more later) which is why they do better in life generally.
However if they are being recruited into jobs where they may end up competing with their bosses then their good looks might work against them.
Marko Pitesa, professor of management at the University of Maryland, led the research – which investigated how people would behave in team activities as opposed to competitive scenarios using CVs with fake photos.
In the competitive situations being perceived as good-looking could work against you, Pitesa said “It’s not always an advantage to be pretty . It can backfire if you are perceived as a threat”
He added “The dominant theoretical perspective in the social sciences for several decades has been that biases and discrimination are caused by irrational prejudice. The way we explain it here pretty men just seem more competent so it is actually subjectively rational to discriminate against them” His research was published in the journal Organisation Behaviour and Human Decision Processes.
As I mentioned earlier women don’t get it all their own way either. In experiments involving recruitment using CVs with photographs, attractive women were discriminated against. This was put down to jealousy among the largely female recruiters.
Once you get the job however good looks seem to effect both men and women equally in respect of earnings with unattractive people earning up to 15% less than their more attractive counterparts.
And the latest investigation into restaurants shows that they give the best tables to the best-looking people (to attract other customers). So if you get tucked away in a corner you know you haven’t got the looks!
David Cameron seems keen to introduce it for recruitment to the civil service, the BBC and leading private companies in order to reduce discrimination against candidates with ethnic minority backgrounds.
This is because research suggests that there is bias against non-white names. Cameron cited the example of a graduate called Jorden Berkeley who couldn’t get an interview until she used her middle name Elizabeth. Well for a start all graduates have to make many applications before they get an interview – unless they’re well-connected of course.
Secondly, to me her first name doesn’t seem a non-white name just one of those modern, sometimes made-up, names we see proliferating such as Jadon, Rafferty, Dexter, Barlow, Chase and Galore, to name but a few and not including compound names . In some cases the name doesn’t even give you a clue as to the person’s gender. I wouldn’t have known whether Jorden was male or female for example. (Is there any research into bias against non-traditional names?)
And removing the name alone is only part of the problem with applications. What about the district you live in, the school and college you went to? Your hobbies and interests? All potential clues to your ethnicity. (And we won’t even mention your Facebook page!)
And what about other biases, for example against age?. We’re all living longer yet the research suggests that over-50s get a raw deal applying for jobs.
Cameron’s promise to “finish the fight for real equality” follows moves to get more women on FTSE100 boards – despite evidence that it doesn’t necessarily improve a company’s performance and leads to the “Golden skirt” phenomenon – and more transparency about pay.
It all seems a bit of a PC “tick a box” to me. After all they’re not going to require applications for top jobs to be hired on a name-blind basis. Where does he think the bias starts?
When it comes down to it which would you prefer in helping you to make key recruiting decisions? A widely researched scientific approach that business psychologists use or one that is untestable and unproven (despite a $million challenge)?
Some sceptics might say there’s not much difference and that psychological testing is a bit woo-woo as well but there is plenty of evidence to show that using reliable and valid tests can help managers make rational decisions.
So how rational is it that, allegedly, corporations would spend good money on asking self-proclaimed psychics to assist them in making key decisions? According to a story in the Sunday Times Appointments section there are people who claim to use their psychic powers to help companies make appointments and other investment decisions.
One of them, Rachel Willis, calls herself a Corporate Psychic Consultant. On her website, Psychic CEO, she claims that this practice is already embraced in America where one psychic, Laura Day, has been paid $10 million dollars over the last 6 years. Day charges clients $10,000 a month to be on call 24/7 to provide psychic advice and takes on 5 at a time.
She not only does financial work but works with Hollywood stars, advises lawyers on jury selection, and has run management courses for Seagate computing. She prefers to be called an intuitive rather than a psychic as she thinks people associate psychics with tea leaves and crystal balls.
And she’s not the only one over there. There’s someone who uses astrology to predict financial trends. (And they all claim to have foreseen the economic downturn)
Willis wants to bring corporate psychics to the fore in the UK and like Day she prefers to be called an intuitive rather than a psychic. When working on a recruitment assignment she says she tunes in to the job and uses the job specification before she tunes into the candidate but never sees their CV or speaks to them. She says she gets an intuitive sense of whether the person is right for the job (based on what, their name?)
On her website she says her clients are “those who get it and understand the positive power of intuition in business”. It also says “there is no woo-woo, magic or incense burning just a concise insightful information flow“. But click through from that site on her individual readings link and she tells you that she is “a channel for Ascended Masters, Angelic Realms, and Beings of Light” and that she is primarily guided by Archangel Michael. How woo-woo is that?
Day calls herself an intuitive these days and offers Esalen approaches to groups of clients. Maybe the corporate stuff didn’t work out for her.
Willis’s twitter account still refers to her as psychic ceo but most of the stuff on the internet is about her being a food intuitive with “magical powers”
The other psychic mentioned in the Appointments article, Paul Lambillion, works in a similar way in that he asks for a fax containing just a job title (and what do they mean these days) and a list of candidates, again no CVs or personal contact. He then puts coloured blobs against each name as he considers whether they might be loyal, adaptable, intelligent etc.
He says he has a client in Liechtenstein (that’s the country with lots of investment bankers and the highest average per capita income in the world – $140,000) who has been using him for recruiting to senior roles for 15 years. But he’s not just a corporate psychic and on his website he claims to use auras for individual readings, does distance readings, and also channels someone called Heartstar.
I couldn’t find any reference to corporate work on his website today so maybe he’s no longer involved in it.
Now you might think that all of this is just weird. After all the French have been using graphology for years without any scientific proof it works. And you might think “so what” if companies are daft enough (although if that’s how they recruit investment bankers it makes you wonder).
A Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development spokesman said that they disagreed entirely with the practice and an employment lawyer pointed out that if a candidate complained of unfair selection they would be entitled to see all the paperwork and ask for reasons why they were not selected. So there might be a problem there providing evidence.
Judging by their current web presence it looks like the recession might have killed their corporate aspirations.
But was it just a harmless fad? Well Willis also claims to be a food intuitive who can sort out your dietary problems, food intolerances and weight problems and that sounds potentially dangerous to me.
Edited & updated from original post on SGANDA in 2011
Some researchers in Canada (a very PC country in my opinion) have replicated the research done in Israel a few years ago.
Men might think that women have the advantage when job-seeking if they are attractive but research from Israel, published by the Royal Economic Society, showed just the opposite in fact.
Researchers sent out over 5,300 CVs for over 2,500 jobs. Two applications were sent for each vacancy – one with a photograph of either an attractive or plain person and an identical one without a photo.
Attractive women who sent in a photograph with their CVs were less likely to get an interview than plainer women who sent a photo and women who sent no photo at all.
For men it was the other way round. Attractive men who sent photos did better than the attractive women but plain men and those who didn’t send photos fared worse than their female counterparts.
Statistically it means that an attractive male only needs to send out 5 CVs to get an interview compared with the 11 a plain-looking male needs to send. Attractive women would be better off not sending a photo as it reduces their chances of getting an interview by 20 – 30%.
The researchers at Ben-Gurion university said it was a case of “beauty discrimination” which reflected the double standards in company HR departments. They checked and found that 96% of the people who screened the CVs were female, typically 23 and 24 years old , and 70% of them were single.
They theorised that these recruiters were jealous of any potential rivals in their workplace and rejected them instantly. There was less discrimination if the recruitment was being handled by an employment agency. Attractive women were no worse off than plain candidates and only slightly worse off than candidate who didn’t send a picture.
Professor Cary Cooper from Lancaster University Management School was more generous about the recruiters suggesting that unconsciously they might think that the less attractive women is the underdog and want to give her a chance. Nice thought Cary but what about the no-photo applications?
Sending photos with CVs is not common in the UK (unless applying for a job relating specifically to your appearance) but is in other parts of Europe. In Israel where the experiment was carried out it’s up to the individual.
In Lithuania our colleagues who are recruiters tell us that young people often send inappropriate pictures with their CVs eg shots on a beach or other holiday locations.
Of course once you’ve got the job good looks seem to effect both men and women equally with unattractive people earning up to 15% less than their more attractive counterparts.
First posted on SGANDA
According to the MacIntyre charity, cited by Camilla Cavendish, the Times journalist who has just published a review of healthcare support workers.
The charity, which provides services for 1,000 adults and children, has created detailed psychological profiles of care workers.
The best ones, the “naturals”, are:
- empathetic introverts,
- good listeners,
- reflective, and
- wanting to work within clear rules
- in structured environments.
Click here for more information and a quiz for you to check out if that kind of work is right for you.
Recruiting people with emotional intelligence and the right values would be a good start. Companies like Nokia have been recruiting for values and attitudes for decades taking the view that they can train people in the technical stuff quite easily.
The Chief Nursing Officer’s vision Compassion in Practice (the 6 Cs) highlights the importance of care and compassion.
One of the 6 Cs is courage and it’s interesting that McIntyre found that the best carers, being introverts, were not very gregarious but would stand up for the people they cared for.
There is also some good research which shows that people with introvert preferences can be more effective leaders than extraverted types.
And you may have heard of Susan Cain, best-selling author of “Quiet: the power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking” (2012).