Department of Animal and Plant Sciences
Recruitment Pack
For recruitment of postdoctoral associates and academic staff
Athena SWAN action committee
3/18/2015
T
his recruitment pack for appointment of postdoctoral research associations
and academic staff is provided by the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences
Athena SWAN action committee.
Information in the pack is based on the Valuing Talent event in APS in which staff
were trained as chairs of recruitment panels and presented information about implicit
bias.
The pack contains 3 documents and an appendix to serve as aide memoires for panel
chairs and as guidance for de-biasing the recruitment process. It should be used
throughout the recruitment cycle to provide support to the panel.
Contents
1. Role and Responsibilities of the Panel Chair
2. De-biasing questions to consider during the application evaluation
stage
3. De-biasing questions to consider during the interview stage
Appendix: “Making it Stick” personal statement ideas
A
message from the HoD:
The Athena Swan process has made us think more carefully about our values, about
how we express them and act on them, and about how we make sure we are doing
what we believe we are doing. Acknowledging that we frequently have to make time-
pressured decisions because of the many demands of our jobs, this recruitment pack
aims to support and guide colleagues as they are engaging with the recruitment
process. I know that all the staff in APS want to see our department recruit and
support a diverse community of excellent colleagues. Please use this excellent
resource when recruiting - it will make our procedures transparent, shared, and
better informed.
Best regards,
Mike Siva-Jothy
Role and Responsibilities of the Panel Chair
As lead representative of the University of Sheffield on the interview panel your role
is to ensure that:
• fair and equitable practice is positively promoted and occurs throughout all
selection action
• the selection action is conducted with integrity and any inappropriate
behaviour is challenged
• recruitment quality standards are met for every recommended appointment
• to ensure that the panel acts in accordance with relevant University policies
and practices
• to ensure sound decisions are made in the selection of candidates
• to have final decision-making authority where the selection panel is divided
Decision making
•
Chair must maintain objective, measured lead
•
Involve all members of the panel
•
Consider all elements of the selection action
•
Maintain focus on professional not personal
•
Link all decision-making back to criteria for the post
•
Agree feedback for unsuccessful candidates
Also keep in mind whether members of the recruitment committee have been trained
about implicit bias and be mindful of the possible impact of implicit bias influencing
recruitment decisions.
Further information relating to recruitment and selection can be found on the HR
web pages
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment
This section of the web pages focuses on four key areas of recruitment, as follows:
Section
Web link
Key information
includes:
Defining the
Job
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment/dt
About the Job and
j
advert templates;
How to grade a role
Recruiting with http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment/rw
Impact
i
Recruitment posters;
Tips on using social
media;
Other
resources to include
potential
applicants
to Sheffield and the
University
Selection
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment/sa
Action
Chair
Recruitment
and
Selection
training;
Long listing;
Forms of assessment;
Making the decision
Making the
Appointment
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment/m
Salary decisions;
ta
Pre
employment
checks;
Academic Probation;
Induction
De-biasing questions during Application Evaluation
Ask
Yes
No
Rationale
Action
Are the short listing
We may use short listing criteria which
Scrutinise the criteria and establish the
criteria based entirely on
have little or no relevance to the reality of
link to performance. Ask yourself if the
role requirements? Have
choosing the best candidate. For example
criteria contain items which arose from a
you used the online
we may have criteria which are purely
small number previous good or bad
recruitment tools to write
administrative such as geographical
experiences and if that might be
notes on candidates?
location or own institution preferences.
restricting the type of people given
consideration.
Is the short listing criteria
If we allow staff to make personal
We may think we all have the same view
written down, objective
judgments they may well use different
but checking that is the case is
and unambiguous? Is this
criteria. In addition, if criteria are
important: write it down and circulate it.
the same for all
ambiguous (and one of these may be
Check people have a sound shared
candidates?
their ‘potential’ or ‘capacity to
understanding of the meaning of the
benefit and develop’) we tend to fall
criteria.
back onto our implicit or intuitive
processing.
Does the criteria use
Particularly action or people focused
Challenge yourself on what exactly is
language that is overly
criteria can lead us to select men or
needed and try to maintain a balance
task focussed or overly
women who we tend to more strongly
between the task and people focused
people focused?
associate with one or the other type of
descriptions. Order the criteria to mix up
criteria
the two to avoid primacy and recency
affects.
Do those commenting
We have a bias blind spot; we can see it in
upon or evaluating
others but not in ourselves. We may
applications know about
think we are excluding irrelevant
implicit bias and how it
information such as names, addresses etc.
may affect decisions?
but our unconscious will process them
Train them!
and may have positive or negative
associations
Do those commenting
Being unduly influenced by those who
Try to strip off all irrelevant information,
upon or evaluating
have gone before us is a risk, especially if
but don’t get too politically correct as
applications do so
staff can see the views of more senior
some personal information may help the
without sight of the
staff.
decision. Be rigorous as to why you
comments or evaluations
need to see any piece of information at
of other staff?
this sifting stage.
Were any dissenting
The risk of group decisions is that we can
Take time to explore the dissenting
opinions or evaluations
ignore or steam-roller that one dissenting
opinion with an open mind.
properly explored before
voice who may have hit upon a flaw or
being discounted?
strength of an applicant.
Have we made sure that
Excluding prior knowledge is difficult but
Try to sift without names and other
applicants known to staff
as far as possible we should try to
information which could identify the
are evaluated the same as
mitigate the impact of prior knowledge if
candidate where possible. If necessary
those who are unknown?
we don’t have it about everyone. Even if
hold the opinions of those who know
we do have prior knowledge of all of the
them back until others have given an
applicants we still need to be mindful that
opinion. Ultimately some staff might
these opinions are formed based partly at
prefer to step back from decision making
least on the way we have processed prior
if their relationship with the applicants is
information and experience which will
very close or strong.
tend to favour people who are like us.
How long have you given
Prior emotional or cognitive load can
Eat! If you are rushed or tired but still
yourself and others to
deplete our mental resources, allowing
have to carry out the selection try to
evaluate applications?
“easy” decisions, that match our biases
assess the less usual or more ambiguous
Are you stressed or
to made more readily.
applicants while you are less tired or
overloaded during
application review?
hungry.
De-biasing questions during the Interview Stage
Ask
Yes
No
Rationale
Action
Have interviewers arrived
Prior emotional or cognitive load can
Eat! If you are rushed or tired but still
refreshed, fed and with
deplete our resources
have to carry out the selection try to
plenty of time to carry
assess the less usual or more ambiguous
out the selection?
applicants while you are less tired or
hungry.
On arrival do applicants
Feeling that we can ‘fit’ is a key
Create an opportunity for applicants to
see a diverse range of
method to mitigate stereotype threat and
see a diverse range of students/staff. Be
people?
research shows people perform better
clear that these people are or are not
when the selection panel look like them.
also assessing the applicant to reduce
anxiety on both sides.
Have we made sure that
Feeling that we can ‘fit’ is a key
Source people who look like the
the interview panel is not
method to mitigate stereotype threat (ST)
applicant to participate in the interview
dominated by people
and research shows people perform
or at least help administer the process or
who look the same?
better when the selection panel look like
provide the welcome.
them. Conversely, panels which do not
look like the applicant can trigger ST.
Have we made sure that
Starting an interview with someone
Consider allowing extra time for non-
sufficient time is giving
whose first language is not English can
Native English speakers so that the
for the interview to
allow unconscious bias to influence our
interview panel can first accommodate
decision.
candidates whose first
themselves to any accent, differences in
language is not English?
cadence, etc.
Are the interview
Ambiguity allows bias back into the
Write them down, test them out
selection criteria written
process because we tend to backfill with
between interviewers before the day
down, objective and
our default information where there is
starts.
unambiguous?
ambiguity.
Have interviewers been
Being mindful of the possible impact of
trained and did that
unconscious bias allows us to mitigate the
training include an input
effect.
on unconscious bias?
Train them.
Are the core questions
Ambiguity allows bias back into the
At least have the basic questions agreed
agreed in advance and is
process because we tend to backfill with
and work from a script.
there a clear criteria or
our default information where there is
rating system?
ambiguity. It can become a self-fulfilling
prophecy because we seek out confirming
and ignore disconfirming information.
Do some of the
We can mitigate stereotype threat by
This can be done in the welcome, the
questions/interactions
these two simple actions. They can easily
introduction to the interview or even
emphasise the
be woven into questions or introductions.
through the questions themselves. The
confidence we have in
earlier the better.
the applicant’s
achievements to date and
the fact that we expect
them to develop in role?
Are we sure interviewers
Ambiguity allows bias back into the
A warm up session to test understanding
understand the criteria
process because we tend to backfill with
will help. A simple discussion of the
and have a shared view of
our default information where there is
meaning of the criteria my well be
that criteria?
ambiguity. It can become a self-fulfilling
enough but don’t skip this and assume
prophecy because we seek out confirming
shared understanding.
and ignore disconfirming information.
Are the views of all
As we tend to listen to and value the
Allow people to rate independently and
selection panel members
opinions of groups with whom we have
simply aggregate. Equally weight
(e.g. junior staff) given
affinity, we should expect this in decision
ratings/opinions. If you used
equal weight in the
making too. Thus, if we are using more
erecruitment, this does it for you. Don’t
decision?
junior staff on the panel we should give
pay lip service to the views of an
their views equal weight with other panel
interviewer, they are either in and
members. This helps to recognise that
equally weighted or out. That doesn’t
biases are everywhere and that ‘the
stop people participating, even if their
diversity of opinion’ has often been
opinions are not used in the final
shown to be more accurate than experts.
decision.
Were any dissenting
The risk of group decisions is that we can
Allow time to discuss the dissenting
opinions on the final
ignore or steam-roller that one dissenting
opinion with an open mind and without
selection fully explored?
voice who may have hit upon a flaw or
challenging until the person has finished
strength of an applicant. It does not
outlining their position/thoughts.
mean that everyone gets a veto, just that
we agree to listen with an open mind to
objections and to give them due
consideration.
What feedback from
Others may not completely understand
Accept this feedback but think about
others, not on the
the criteria or if they do, may not have a
how to weight this, particularly if any of
interview committee,
shared view of that criteria They may not
the feedback is based on personal
have played in the final
be aware of their own biases and they
interactions, perceptions of the
decision?
may not have attempted to mitigate them
candidate as a “good fit”.
during evaluation.
Do we have a similar
We tend to write more when people are
Weigh them! Or at least compare them.
volume of interview notes
not like us. Simple volume of notes
Remember to use erecruitment to help
for all candidates?
cataloguing reasons to reject should alert
in this process.
us.
Is the balance of
We tend to spend more time reviewing
Compare the feedback in terms of both
feedback we produce and
past shortcomings with people who are
content and the review/developmental
give similar for all
not like us, and to make the feedback less
balance.
candidates in terms of
formative, more vague and less useful.
We spend more time giving ideas, talking
interview performance
about future aspirations and may find
and future development?
ourselves talking about ‘we’ with those
who are more like us.
Making it Stick
We encourage staff to do simple easy things to mitigate the effect of implicit
bias on our people decisions. “Making it Stick” are statements of
commitment regarding how you personally can mitigate your own biases
during selection and assessment of candidates. We provide some ideas below
from the open access web site, iCommit. Additional statements and ideas can
be found on that website (see Get Inspiration;
https://www.icommit.co.uk/inspiration.php)
Remember that big changes can happen if we all do at least one small thing
differently. To make our own small change happen, we have to decide when
we will do it and what we will or will not do. These statements help with that
process.
Ideas for personal statements of commitment during:
Writing Job Descriptions
When I am next interviewing for staff (or writing out a job description), I will
make sure before I start that I have a clear idea of the criteria for the role and
that I challenge that criteria to ensure it is valid and not just a description of
me.
When I next recruit, I will personally encourage a wider range of staff to
apply, especially those who don’t look like me.
When I am writing a job description, I will slow down and take particular care
if I have pictures in my head of a particular person (or myself) as I am writing.
Application evaluation
When I am reviewing CVs, I will not do that when I am tired.
When I next receive a batch of CVs, I will review them without referring to the
names on the CV.
When I next recruit, I will not allow a “short sift” timeframe, from when I
receive CVs to when I am expected to evaluate CVs so that I do not rush my
decision.
Interviewing
When I am next interviewing for staff, I will make sure before I start that I
have a clear idea of the criteria for the role and that I have a common
understanding of this criteria with other interviewers.
When I am next recruiting, I will interview XX% more applicants to broaden
the scope of the people I invite to interview.
When I am next interviewing, I will encourage my co-interviewers to
challenge me on my deliberations and decisions and try not to get defensive
about this
When I am next interviewing staff, I will challenge myself to ask if I have
weighed the evidence fairly
When I am thinking negative things about interview performance, I will ask
myself if I would be thinking the same thing if that staff member had been a
man/woman, etc.
Throughout the process
When I am making important people decisions, I will stop and ask myself if I
am being a good role model in the decision and in my own behaviour
When I see or hear behaviours which I think may be driven by implicit bias or
unhelpful aspects of our culture, I will challenge those behaviours