While I won’t say that I’m a great tennis enthusiast, I watched a number of matches between iconic players in my teens. Naturally, I enjoyed watching John McEnroe, the ‘Bad Boy’ of tennis as well as Jimmy Connors. I can still hear McEnroe’s voice bellowing from the tennis court, “You cannot be serious! That ball was on the line!”.
I recently watched an old video clip of McEnroe and Connors in a match. First, while Connors served the game, McEnroe lost a point on a close call. Next, McEnroe went on a minutes-long tirade about the absurdity of the call. Connors simply stood and watched in disbelief of the tantrum. Of course, the officials didn’t budge, and the call remained. Once game play finally resumed, Connors launched his next two serves deep into the stands, resulting in a double fault.
Just like that Connors corrected the situation. No, he didn’t reverse the perceived missed call. However, with two simple swings of his racket, he wiped out the deficit. It was as if that call didn’t occur, even when it did.
Vilifying diversity
For better or worse, this has become a very charged issue. Entire state legislatures systematically target DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). In some cases, some have even implied that DEI caused the recent woes in airline safety. Very abruptly the aspiration for companies to have diverse workforces has become the convenient scapegoat. I have maintained that your workforce should mirror your customers. Some suggested that upon boarding a plane, they would turn around upon discovering that the pilot is black, questioning their competency.
They suggest that employers should simply employ those who are the most qualified; they use the term meritocracy. The term sound innocuous and seductive. Of course, we want to hire the best person for the job; it’s just that simple. It sounds like the epitome of fairness. Doesn’t it?
However, each candidate’s diversity is among their qualifications and having a homogeneous workforce puts you at risk. For example, in many activity trackers, the heart rate monitor does not work reliably with darker skin (or obese) wearers. Similarly, early versions of the iPhone’s Face Id did not work among Chinese women. In these cases, having more dark-skinned (or obese) employees would’ve helped with the former, and having Asian women employees would’ve helped with the latter. Having an entire workforce of white men does not get it done.
“We’re don’t unfairly discriminate”
Many employers assume that simply because they’re not trying to discriminate that they do not discriminate. However, we all lean in one particular direction. Much like most of us predominantly use either our right hand or left hand, most of us will unfairly discriminate. Are there those who are acceptably unbiased? Absolutely, but they are exceedingly rare, like those who are ambidextrous.
You may assert that we’re not bigoted, except that we are. It’s not opinion; there have been studies. They sent out 80,000 resumes and observed which resumés were called, and surprise… We unfairly discriminate. We rarely intentionally discriminate; we often unintentionally discriminate. Racial discrimination is most pronounced. The very notion of meritocracy relies on the premise that we can accurately assess the most qualified candidate, and studies indicate that we can’t.
Most figuratively drive down the freeway blindfolded. Some understand that we’re blindfolded and try to navigate as carefully as they can; they embrace DEI. The others don’t believe that we’re blindfolded and continue driving without a care in the world; they vilify DEI. Do you still not believe it? Even our web searches for images demonstrate that we’re collectively biased.
Naturally, once we’re aware of the problem, how do we fix it? In order to think through this, let’s ponder through a problem that is less emotionally charged: cavities.
Minimize the impact
This starts by acknowledging that there’s a problem but taking precautions to minimize the impact. In the case of cavities, you simply aim to only have a simple filling versus a root canal or extraction. We understand that cavities will occur, but we focus on making their impact as small as possible, getting a filling is acceptable and extraction is not.
Once we acknowledge that bias occurs in the hiring process, how do we minimize its impact? I have a former colleague who tells the story where his company conducts their interview feedback without mention of names or gender. Naturally, the interview is conducted face to face (or over video), so you can’t eliminate all bias. However, they conduct all interview feedback with the term TC (for The Candidate). This means readers of the feedback will lack details from the candidate that ultimately don’t matter.
For instance, for programmers, the ability to solve the problem and how they solved it matters. The fact that the candidate is a woman versus a man does not matter. The fact that the candidate’s name is Robert, Susan, Rodrigo, or Alok does not matter. By making references that may easily be used as an unintentional source of bias, we introduce that possibility.
Composing anonymized feedback also has the added bonus that we can more easily compare candidates. We can look at the candidates’ feedback side-by-side and evaluate them objectively with minimal bias.
However, this requires acknowledging there’s a problem, coming up with a plan to address it, and committing to it. It requires work.
Minimize the frequency
Again, this starts by acknowledging that the problem occurs but seeking to minimize its frequency. In the case of cavities, you simply aim to have fewer cavities by practicing good dental hygiene. We understand that some cavities will occur, but you want to minimize how many of them will occur.
Once we acknowledge that bias occurs in the hiring process, and this results in a homogeneous versus a diverse workforce. Please remember, studies show that we have a natural inclination to select white (and male, depending on role) candidates over others. When searching for candidates, there’s rarely a pool of only one; you’ll have a list of candidates that will do the job adequately. In this particular case, consider selecting the diverse candidate.
I understand that this will sound like bias in and of itself, but I’d like to frame it differently. You observe that your sibling routinely arrives late to a group dinner, requiring everyone to wait. To adjust for this, you text them that the reservation is at 6:00pm, not the scheduled 6:30pm. In a perfect world, your sibling would arrive on time. Did you discriminate and lie to one particular person? Absolutely! However, it resulted in everyone arriving on time.
Note that I do not suggest picking the diverse candidate over someone more qualified. I merely suggest that among the pool of qualified candidates, consider picking the one that will make your workforce more closely reflect your customers (typically the entire population). That often means pick the diverse candidate. This also means that you’ll be offsetting the implicit bias that we have observed in studies.
Minimize the discrimination
Discrimination will always exist, like gravity. We can’t completely eliminate it, but we can account for it. It starts by acknowledging that it exists and actively making adjustments. If you read through the studies and results and conclude that discrimination does indeed exist but refuse to make changes, what does that say about us? “I know we have a propensity to hire white men over women or people of color, but changing our hiring practices is too difficult.”
Some will rationalize that as a white male, employers are now less likely to extend you an offer over a diverse candidate. However, I’d like you to ponder the unsettling notion that this is precisely what women and people of color have battled for years, except that we have the studies that confirm those suspicions. For those misguided souls that question the competency of black pilots, they can consider that a white male pilot is more likely to benefit from implicit bias than any other demographic, yet their competency is not questioned.
For those who will continue to scream for a meritocracy, at least entertain the idea that in order for that to work, you need to accurately assess the qualifications of a candidate without bias. That you should be able to consistently pick the same ‘most qualified candidate’ among three resumés, even if you were to rotate their names: Robert Williams, Claire Nelson, and Juan Carlos Rodriguez. Today, we can’t.
As I circle back to the start of the post, Jimmy Connors made one such adjustment. He quietly conceded that he may have gotten an extra point in error, so he intentionally double faulted to correct for it.