We often assume that our conscious or rational mind is in the driver\u2019s seat\u00a0because it\u2019s the part of our mind that talks to us, the voice inside our head as we read the words on this page. But\u00a0science\u00a0says\u00a0our brains make decisions intuitively<\/a>\u00a0before\u00a0we\u2019re aware of it; that the vast majority of our processing takes place\u00a0outside\u00a0conscious notice. We all have learned\u00a0stereotypes, attitudes, modes of thinking that are automatic, unintentional, and inbuilt,\u00a0impacting our decision-making, and leading to flawed assessments\u00a0\u2014\u00a0including\u00a0hiring decisions.\u00a0In other words, none of us\u00a0is\u00a0immune to\u00a0unconscious\u00a0bias<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n In 2002, Daniel Kahneman changed the way we think about thinking, earning him a\u00a0Nobel Prize<\/a>.\u00a0He put forth a simple\u00a0cognitive\u00a0split to explain much of human behavior: fast versus slow\u00a0thinking. While an artificial construct, this dichotomy draws upon decades of research. Fast thinking is\u00a0unconscious, instinctive, automatic, and emotional\u00a0\u2014\u00a0resulting in snap judgments and, sometimes, bias. Slow thinking is what we consider\u00a0real\u00a0\u201cthought;\u201d\u00a0it\u2019s conscious, logical, deliberate, and\u00a0(mostly)\u00a0rational. We use both fast and slow thinking to process information and make decisions but tend to avoid slow thinking when possible because it is more work for our brain and consumes a great deal of energy.\u00a0Most of the time, our fast and intuitive mind is in control, taking efficient charge of the thousands of decisions we make every day. Even the \u201csimple\u201d act of walking is best done without interference from consciousness\u00a0\u2014\u00a0ask someone a multiplication problem mid-stride, and\u00a0they\u00a0are\u00a0likely to stop for a second before answering.\u00a0Our brains can consciously process 50 bits of information per second but\u00a0can process a whopping 11 million bits\u00a0unconsciously<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0Thought to be an evolutionary adaptation for humans to process and integrate multiple sources of information instantaneously,\u00a0these cognitive shortcuts\u00a0are, in essence, timesaving mechanisms for the human brain. But with shortcuts come shortcomings:\u00a0when our fast-thinking, automatic mind makes decisions that should be the province of our slow-thinking, analytical mind,\u00a0mistakes creep in.<\/p>\n Unconscious biases, though happening outside our awareness, can impact recruiting, hiring, diversity, and productivity.\u00a0The vast majority of recruiters and hiring managers would not intentionally base their final hiring decision on an aspect like this, but that\u2019s the problem with unconscious bias\u00a0\u2014\u00a0you don\u2019t realize that it is affecting your decision making.\u00a0The best way to stop unconscious bias is through awareness and direct action in your recruiting, hiring, onboarding, and talent retention processes;\u00a0this will help create a more genuinely diverse and inclusive workplace.<\/p>\n Here are 13 examples of unconscious bias that commonly impact both candidates and employers in the workplace\u00a0\u2014\u00a0along with tips on how to avoid them.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Name bias refers to the tendency to judge and prefer people with certain types of names\u00a0\u2014\u00a0often of Anglo origin.<\/p>\n Name bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0What’s in a name? Apparently, a lot. The numbers bear out that this is of the\u00a0most\u00a0pervasive forms of unconscious bias in the hiring process. One\u00a0research study\u00a0found that\u00a0white (Anglo-Saxon) names receive 50% more callbacks for interviews<\/a>\u00a0than do candidates with African-American names.\u00a0Another\u00a0study\u00a0found that\u00a0Asian last names are 28% less likely to receive a callback for an interview<\/a>\u00a0than those with Anglo last names.<\/p>\n Avoiding\u00a0name bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0There’s a simple fix: omit candidate name and personal information like email, phone number, and address from application materials. Assign candidates a\u00a0number, or\u00a0have an unbiased third-party team member redact this information for the hiring team before a candidate interview, making skills and experience the main things being looked at, without the influence of irrelevant personal information.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0The halo effect, sometimes known as the “halo error,” is when one positive trait about a person affects how we judge them in other, unrelated areas.<\/p>\n Halo effect in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0While looking at resumes, you see that a candidate graduated from an elite school and infer\u00a0that they must be an excellent fit for your company. Other candidates may match your ideal candidate profile better, but they graduated from state schools. Without realizing it, you may find yourself favoring the elite school candidate, ignoring negative details that might emerge throughout the hiring process.<\/p>\n Avoiding the\u00a0halo\u00a0effect:<\/strong><\/em> To prevent the halo effect when hiring, make sure you do not see correlations where there are none. When reviewing candidates,\u00a0hew\u00a0closely\u00a0to\u00a0the details and attributes listed in\u00a0your job profile\u00a0so that you are less likely to be swayed by other.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0The\u00a0horns\u00a0effect is essentially the\u00a0opposite\u00a0of the\u00a0halo\u00a0effect. It\u00a0is when a negative trait about a person affects how we judge them in other, unrelated areas.\u00a0Perception is unduly influenced\u00a0by this negative trait\u00a0\u2014\u00a0casting a mantle of “horns” instead of the vaunted “halo.”<\/p>\n Horns effect in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0The\u00a0horns effect can lead a hiring team to nix candidates based on a singular trait that is averse to the team\u2019s preferences\u00a0\u2014\u00a0despite its irrelevance to the role. It could be as inconsequential as the candidate displaying a particular quirk or mannerism during an interview or having worked in the past with a company you don’t like. Perception of the candidate can be altered entirely,\u00a0even though these factors\u00a0are\u00a0irrelevant to the role.<\/p>\n Avoiding the\u00a0horns effect:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Have a negative feeling about a candidate? Try taking the time to figure out why. Where is that\u00a0\u201cgut feeling” coming from, what is prompting this reaction? By applying the slow thinking part of your mind, you may discover that the issue is trivial or insignificant and would not impact their ability to succeed in the role.\u00a0Consult\u00a0with the rest of the hiring team to get other perspectives on the candidate; checks and balances go a long way to extinguishing unconscious bias.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Anchoring occurs when individuals use the first piece of\u00a0information\u00a0they learn about something to make subsequent judgments. Once this anchor is set, there is a bias toward interpreting other data around the\u00a0anchor.\u202fIn one\u00a0study, students were given anchors that were clearly wrong\u2014they were asked if Mahatma Gandhi\u00a0was older or younger than age\u00a09, or\u00a0older or younger than\u00a0140<\/a>.\u00a0The two groups guessed in significantly different manners depending on which anchor they initially received, with the \u201c9 group\u201d choosing an average of 50 versus the \u201c140 group\u201d proffering an average age of 67.<\/p>\n Anchoring bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Common anchors that can impact hiring decisions include the college a candidate attended, where they live, the car they drive, or if the two of you grew up in the same town.<\/p>\n Avoiding\u00a0anchoring bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Analyze performance and retention data to uncover where there are strong correlations between hiring and future performance. Organize your hiring process to reflect this data and focus on attributes that are meaningful indicators of success for the role, like a strong aptitude for\u00a0problem-solving.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0One of the most pervasive biases, gender bias is the tendency to prefer one gender over another. The gender\u00a0pay\u00a0gap and the variance in hiring rates are two of the most common (and glaring) examples of\u00a0gender bias.<\/p>\n Gender bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0It is no surprise that men are given preferential treatment over women in the workplace. But it may shock you to learn that both male\u00a0and\u00a0female managers were\u00a0twice as likely\u00a0to hire a man over a woman,\u00a0according to a\u00a0recent study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/a>. When presented with equally skilled candidates, men were 1.5 times more likely to be hired\u00a0\u2014\u00a0and when a lesser candidate was employed in lieu of a more qualified one, the lesser candidate was a man over 66% of the time.<\/p>\n Avoiding\u00a0gender bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u202fA way to sidestep gender bias is to conduct blind screenings of applications that exclude aspects of a candidate that\u00a0might\u00a0reveal their gender\u00a0\u2014\u00a0name, interests, volunteer organizations. Setting explicit diversity hiring goals can help ensure that your organization holds itself accountable to equitable hiring practices. Make skill and merit the yardstick rather than traits that can cloud judgment.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0We have all encountered this one before,\u00a0both in and out of the workplace.\u00a0Affinity bias, also known as similarity bias, is the tendency for people to connect with others\u00a0who share similar backgrounds, interests, and experiences.<\/p>\n Affinity bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0It’s easy to fall prey to affinity bias when evaluating “culture fit.” When hiring teams engage a candidate they like and feel will get along with the team, it’s often a bridge built of shared interests, experiences, and backgrounds. While similarities should not disqualify a candidate, they also should not be the deciding factor.\u00a0At first glance,\u00a0affinity bias may not seem like such an egregious issue, but at amplified levels, it can have serious implications for diversity in the workplace.<\/p>\n Avoiding\u00a0affinity bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Look to your company’s core values as the true north star when evaluating a candidate for culture fit. Make sure not to allow “culture fit” to become code for affinity bias. Focus less on shared experiences and more unique skills that will be a \u201cculture add.\u201d<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Confirmation bias<\/a>\u00a0is often dubbed the “mother of all misconceptions”\u00a0because of its\u00a0prevalence\u00a0in our lives,\u00a0and refers to the tendency to look for information that confirms our own pre-existing beliefs, prejudices, or desires. This selective\u00a0observation may mean you overlook or reject information that does not fit your viewpoint, creating flawed patterns in our thinking that can lead to bias in hiring. It is one of the most studied unconscious biases.<\/p>\n Confirmation bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Confirmation bias can rear its head when a hiring manager looks for information to validate their belief of something, rather than looking at the data for its own merit. The hiring process can devolve into a way to confirm these beliefs as opposed to getting to know the candidate.<\/p>\n Avoiding\u00a0confirmation bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Create a list of standardized questions to gauge specific skills and traits of a candidate to help reduce confirmation bias. By having the hiring team evaluate candidates based on predetermined data points that relate directly to the role, candidates are on equal footing. Every interview will evolve into a unique conversation based on a person\u2019s\u00a0experience,\u00a0but\u00a0having a fixed\u00a0set of questions will help prevent your team from asking too many off-the-cuff questions that could lead to\u00a0confirmation bias.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Attribution bias is all about how we assess our own behavior:\u00a0when we do something well, we credit our success to our skills and effort. But when we make mistakes,\u00a0we blame it on externalities.\u00a0Guess\u00a0what happens when we assess the behavior of other people?\u00a0We do the opposite:\u00a0when\u00a0we attribute\u00a0their successes\u00a0to \u201cluck\u201d\u00a0\u2014\u00a0and see their errors as \u201cred flags\u201d or signs of weakness.<\/p>\n Attribution bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Attribution bias can skew your view of a candidate’s performance by minimizing accomplishments while\u00a0amplifying faults or shortcomings\u00a0\u2014\u00a0and may cause you to disregard a talented candidate.\u00a0Humans snap to quick judgments and falsely assume things about people without knowing the full story. When hiring,\u00a0attribution bias may cause hiring managers to find someone unfit for a role because of something unusual on their resume\u00a0\u2014\u00a0like\u00a0a gap of two years.<\/p>\n Avoiding attribution bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u202fThere is an age-old adage about the dangers of assuming, and it holds here. Before\u00a0assuming\u00a0a candidate is not fit for a role,\u00a0ask what happened.\u00a0That two-year\u00a0resume\u00a0gap\u00a0could be when the candidate was sick with cancer.\u00a0Some simple clarifying questions go a long way to dispelling assumptions. Give people a chance to share their full stories before writing them off.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Also known as the contrast effect, this bias occurs when you rank things.\u00a0You may believe that a candidate is better or worse based on how we feel about\u00a0another\u00a0candidate. It can be difficult to remember that one candidate’s fitness for the role has nothing to do with another’s.<\/p>\n Contrast bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0When reviewing\u00a0numerous\u00a0candidates for a job, it can be\u00a0devilishly\u00a0easy to compare\u00a0one\u00a0candidate\u2019s CV\u00a0to the previous one in the\u00a0application\u00a0pile instead of\u00a0comparing it across\u00a0the\u00a0whole\u00a0stack of resumes. An outstandingly good interview with one candidate may make the next one\u00a0seem\u00a0awful by contrast.<\/p>\n Avoiding\u00a0contrast bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u202f Create an applicant review and interview process using standardized, predetermined metrics to prevent reliance on feelings caused by contrast bias. By doing so, your team can compare resumes and interview answers as apples-to-apples instead of apples-to-oranges, allowing for consistent evaluation of all candidates. Applying these same tactics for performance reviews and bonus rewards for employees is an excellent overall practice, as the contrast effect extends beyond the hiring process.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Conformity bias is the tendency to behave\u00a0like others in\u00a0a group,\u00a0even\u00a0if it contradicts your judgment or beliefs.\u00a0You likely recognize this cognitive bias by its more pernicious form:\u00a0peer pressure.\u00a0This bias can constrict creativity,\u00a0constructive\u00a0dissenting opinions, and keep people from productively challenging one another.<\/p>\n Conformity bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0When reviewing a candidate\u2019s application materials,\u00a0you want to ensure that individual opinions about a candidate don’t fall prey to groupthink\u00a0\u2014\u00a0you could miss out on hiring a stellar candidate for it.<\/p>\n Avoiding\u00a0conformity bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u202fBefore meeting as a team to discuss a candidate, have each member write down and submit their feedback and thoughts separate from one another after interacting with the candidate. After doing so, have your team come together to review what everyone wrote to hear more impartial opinions before making a decision.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Ageism is when one has negative feelings or judgments about another person based on their age.<\/p>\n Ageism bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Particularly\u00a0at American companies, ageism impacts older people more often than younger.\u00a058% of workers<\/a>\u00a0begin to notice ageism as they slide into their 50s\u00a0\u2014\u00a0making it more difficult to find a job, move up the ladder, or change careers. Employers tend to value younger talent more and more (economics is a factor, younger workers are cheaper),\u00a0despite how critical experience and expertise are for any successful organization.<\/p>\n Avoiding\u00a0ageism\u00a0bias:<\/strong><\/em>\u202fWork to debunk myths around ageism in your company. Create policies that prevent age bias by setting a goal of hiring with an eye to age diversity when recruiting new talent.<\/p>\n Definition:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Beauty bias\u00a0is the tendency\u00a0to believe that attractive people are more competent, qualified, and successful.<\/p>\n Beauty bias in the workplace:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Simply\u00a0put:\u00a0it pays to be pretty. According to research, this\u00a0is a\u00a0common form of bias in the workplace\u00a0\u2014\u00a0playing out in paychecks everywhere.\u00a0Studies\u00a0find that attractive people\u00a0\u2014\u00a0yes,\u00a0both women\u00a0and\u00a0men\u00a0\u2014\u00a0earn higher incomes<\/a>. Women gain an\u00a0eight percent wage boost<\/a>\u00a0for above-average looks but pay a four percent pay penalty if below-average. The wage boost is just four percent for men, but the penalty for below-average looks is far higher, clocking in at 13 percent!<\/p>\nIf you’re making hiring decisions based on “gut feeling,” you’re likely hiring based on unconscious bias. Yikes.<\/h3>\n
1. NAME BIAS<\/h3>\n
2. HALO EFFECT<\/h3>\n
3. HORNS EFFECT<\/h3>\n
4. ANCHORING BIAS<\/h3>\n
5. GENDER BIAS<\/h3>\n
6. AFFINITY BIAS<\/h3>\n
7. CONFIRMATION BIAS<\/h3>\n
8. ATTRIBUTION BIAS<\/h3>\n
9. CONTRAST BIAS<\/h3>\n
10. CONFORMITY BIAS<\/h3>\n
11. AGEISM BIAS<\/h3>\n
12. BEAUTY BIAS<\/h3>\n
<\/h3>\n