... in their shoes.
No problem, pt 5
Let me tell you about my view of DEI, which is a little different from the norm, but often leads to the same place.
Fairness is an intractable aspect of my personality, and it’s a requirement for me that the employers I partner with treat their people fairly.
It’s not always a good thing. For example who is the arbiter of fairness, and is fair for one, fair for all or fair consistently?
It’s also worked against me. In my personal drive for fairness, I’ve been both sacked (for SOSR if you want to know) and lost friends of convenience.
So, I’m always fighting against myself to balance fairness with consistency and the wider picture.
However ensuring candidates and employers are treated fairly by the recruitment process is never a bad thing, and you have to work in a certain way so that all parties value that fairness.
Salary, communications, expectations management, commitment etc.
The second thing that drives me is accessibility for all.
How can we make accessibility better for both employers and candidates?
How can we allow employers fullest access to the market and potential candidates fullest access to a vacancy?
Put that way accessibility is an opportunity, even if you use the legal definition under the UK disability discrimination act (DDA).
Balance fairness for all and accessibility leads to everyone having the same opportunities.
While employers who treat the employees fairly and give them access to what they need to succeed - that’s the path to inclusiveness and retention.
I believe this meets the definitions for DEI and belonging, as well as better wellbeing.
One argument against reasonable adjustments is that it gives unfair advantage to those who need them. But that’s only the case if you aren’t trying to create an even playing field for everyone.
Look at the DDA - it’s a requirement that new builds conform to certain specifications, such as wider doors. It may be most helpful for those with wheelchairs, but who doesn’t benefit from a wider door?
I don’t monitor my diversity stats in recruitment for a couple of reasons, one is that I work at low volume, and the other is that most of my vacancies are considered skill short - I do everything I can to access every potential candidate, no matter their situation.
The consequence this year is that I’ve placed more women than men, four people who feel their age has been discriminated against, one guy with cerebral palsy who got his foot in the door in an IT career (he’s a great candidate and other employers missed out) and on Monday a 24 year old who was under the skills requirement for a vacancy, but had the right capability long term.
I’ve also worked with quite a few candidates who needed accommodations for a variety of reasons.
The missing piece of the puzzle might be fair representation, but I struggle to see what is truly fair representation in the fragmented roles I have recruited.
What I can say, looking back at all the placements in my career is that on aggregate every employer has had increased diversity from my placements - not because of the goal, but because of the consequence of accessibility.
I’ve worked hard to look at bias as an opportunity - if other companies reject great candidates due to bias, what a great opportunity for us to place them instead. Unconscious bias is bad for the obvious reasons, but it also reduces access to ‘talent’.
If everyone took this approach, I believe that iteratively, over time the diversity of a workforce would reflect the diversity of the commutable population. No short-term fix, for sure.
Of course, in a larger recruitment structure tracking your DEI data is a great way to track performance, so my approach is related to the nature of my work as an external recruiter.
Have I got it right? Am I being naive?
A conversation I’m always happy to have, and I am learning.
And so we come to problem-solving in recruitment, in this fifth part of the series.
How can accessibility solve problems?
Or rather, what problems can we anticipate candidates will have that reduce their ability to access a vacancy?
And how can we solve them in a way that helps everyone?
For people who are out of work, looking for work can be a stressful and anxiety-laden endeavour.
What can we do to reduce those issues in a way that benefits everyone else, including our recruitment?
Clearer more timely communications. Transparent processes highlighted in advance. Efficient interview processes. A commitment to feedback.
Who doesn’t that benefit?
What about busy people who haven’t updated their CVs?
Maybe they don’t need a reasonable accommodation, but why not invite everyone to get in touch, no matter the state of their documentation?
The irony here is that most people who take you up on that offer have the accountability to only do so suitably. People who rely on EasyApply to scattergun rarely have the chutzpah to call or engage directly.
What if people need an accommodation due to a disability?
What if they worry about being discriminated against because of that disability?
How can we create a safe space for them to ask for an accommodation?
In my email footer, I say “Please note – let me know if you need any accommodations or additional support during any stage of recruitment.”
In my adverts, I say much the same, as I do on the phone.
An invitation that is open to everyone for any reason. Can’t talk during work hours? I’m free til 11 pm, by arrangement.
How might our recruitment process inadvertently preclude people who need an accommodation?
I don’t think it’s talked about enough that a lot of recruitment systems inadvertently discriminate - psychometrics and ATS applications are rife with issues. IIRC Amazon’s original ATS favoured men. One ATS (I forget who) auto-rejected people named Geoff (due to programming that eliminated EOF - end of file - entries).
What about accessibility in writing?
Overly technical and ambiguous wordage pushes people away. The evidence is there for people in marginalised demographics - with extensive research a google away.
But it also pushes people away who can’t be bothered to cut through the crap.
How accessible are your job adverts, job descriptions, interview invites, and other communications?
What about accessibility in interviews?
One recommendation for people with autism is to allow interview questions in advance. What would happen if you allowed that for everyone?
What about accessibility in CVs?
Many bad CVs hide good candidates. The same can be said for job descriptions and their vacancies. How can you look past a document most people don’t have the skill to write effectively?
Need a multiskilled engineer and can’t find them. What about an engnieer (that’s a sourcing hack I can tell you about if you like).
How would this benefit filling skill-short roles?
Put yourselves in the shoes of your candidates and think about the problems they may have that you can straightforwardly solve through process and communication.
Prove me wrong if it doesn’t benefit everyone, and if it doesn’t make your recruitment simpler to fulfil.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. if you want to benefit from better access to candidates, we can talk.