Hiring great tech talent is hard. But many companies make it even harder on themselves without realizing it.
Think about your last hiring round. How many resumes did you toss aside because the candidate studied in a tier 2 college? How many candidates did you skip because their photo didn't "look the part"? Be honest.
We all have biases. They're inherent to being a human. But they're sneaky, often unconscious, and can cost you some seriously great talent.
At Flexiple, we follow a 4-point checklist to keep our biases in check and make hiring as fair as possible:
#1 - Focus on capabilities, leave the rest.
A candidate's name, photo, or even the university they attended can lead to uninformed judgments. But none of these factors necessarily are good predictors of how the person can be fit for your role and team.
So, redact any identifiers.
Use an applicant tracking system that automatically anonymizes applications, or assign someone to redact identifying information before the initial review. Then you are left with the only thing that matters - skills and experience.
#2 - Know what you want, objectively.
When you're hiring for a role, you already know exactly what you need. Loop your team in for a 15-20 minutes huddle. Create an objective list of 8-10 objective parameters that a person must have to excel in the role. These might include specific technical skills, years of experience in certain areas, their notice period, CTC expectations, key soft skills, etc. This is your uniform blueprint.
When you or your hiring partner are screening or shortlisting candidates, use this list. Only talk to people who score 8-10. Now you can evaluate each applicant against the same criteria, reducing the impact of personal biases.
#3 - One process to evaluate them all.
When each interviewer asks different questions or focuses on different aspects, it becomes impossible to make fair comparisons between candidates.
The only antidote here is standardization. So, define interview questions and evaluation criteria for each role, not each candidate.
First, develop a set of 7-10 questions. These should be designed to assess the key parameters you identified in your blueprint. Include a mix of technical questions, problem-solving scenarios, and behavioral queries.
Two, define what “average”, “good”, and “excellent” for each of the parameters in your blueprint looks like. Basically, create a rubric for evaluating responses. This gives your interviewers a framework for assessing candidates objectively, rather than relying on gut feelings.
Now, each candidate has a leveling ground.
#4 - Two heads are better than one.
Even with the best intentions, individual biases can creep into our decision-making. So, involve someone else in this process. Introduce different perspectives to nullify any individual biases.
This doesn't mean you need a large interview panel. For smaller teams, aim to have at least two people involved in the process. These could be the direct manager and a potential teammate, or representatives from different departments that will interact with the new hire.
Give them the blueprint, question set, and evaluation rubric. Encourage your interviewers to share their assessments independently before discussing them as a group. This prevents groupthink and ensures that different viewpoints are considered.
Small changes, big impact
As you implement these strategies, you'll likely notice subtle but significant changes in your hiring process. You might find candidates with unique backgrounds bringing fresh perspectives to your team. Or you could see an improvement in the overall quality of your hires.
Keep in mind that this is an ongoing process. After each hiring round, take a moment to reflect on what worked well and what could be improved. Maybe you'll discover that your rubric needs tweaking, or that involving an additional team member in interviews yields better results.
While making bad hires is unavoidable, there still should be a streamlined process for fairness.
The key is to stay committed to fair hiring practices. This alone will make all the difference - to you and the candidates.
