Advancing Equity in Hiring and Promotion: New Insights and Strategies presented in research by Center Scholar Catherine Tinsley
As the push for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in the workplace gains momentum, with projected spending exceeding US$15 billion in the coming years, it is crucial to ensure these resources are used effectively. To achieve substantial progress, companies must adopt innovative methods and procedures that address the current obstacles to reaching DE&I goals. Merely allocating more resources is unlikely to bring the desired success.
One significant challenge is the conflict between managers’ intentions to diversify their staff and false beliefs about minority candidates’ performance. When hiring for a specific position, managers must identify the candidate who is likely to be most successful in the role. Although there is a desire to hire and promote women and minorities in industries or organizational levels where they are underrepresented, hiring decisions are ultimately based on the perceived likelihood of the candidate being a high performer. Yet, in some cases, managers may have developed systematically false beliefs regarding minority candidates’ performance, creating an apparent conflict between promoting diversity and selecting the best candidate.
This issue can arise due to misunderstandings about the information hiring managers have on employees’ performance. Recent research by David Hagmann, Gwendolin Sajons, and Catherine Tinsley reveals a novel bias in this regard: “population neglect.” This term refers to the tendency to overlook uneven representation of different demographic groups within a population, leading to downward-biased expectations about the success rate of minority candidates.
In their paper “Statistical Discrimination Against Minority Groups,” the researchers explain why attending to this population imbalance is so important. They argue that when hiring managers’ beliefs about the performance of certain demographic groups are influenced by salient information about top performers, neglecting the underlying population imbalance leads to biased perceptions about the minority demographic group’s relative abilities. Consequently, this cognitive bias fosters a false belief that minority members will perform worse, resulting in a more homogeneous, majority-favored workforce.
For instance, consider a law firm seeking to hire new associates. Among its top 20 senior associates, 16 are White, 3 are Black, and 1 is Asian. This is representative of the US population, suggesting they do not favor White candidates. But if the firm’s managers fail to account for the demographics of the US population, they may incorrectly infer that White senior associates are more productive, as they constitute 80% of the top performers. Neglecting differences in group size when assessing the composition of top performers will thus perpetuate the penalization of minority demographic groups across industries. To gain accurate insights about differences in performance, it is crucial to adjust for relative group sizes.
The crux is that organizations are spending significant sums on diversity training that fails to address this critical aspect. Hiring managers may discriminate in hiring even when they do not harbor biases against certain populations, but merely misinterpret the data regarding which candidates would excel in a particular role. To rectify this problem, specific training is required for evaluating and interpreting performance data. The “population neglect” bias suggests that organizations should include statistical training to emphasize the impact of population imbalances and information about top performers on inferences about group differences. This statistical training can complement a company’s existing inclusiveness training programs. Managers want to hire the best candidates, and understanding the role of statistics in evaluating potential hires will empower them to make more informed decisions.
The population neglect bias has several policy implications for organizations, educational institutions, and government bodies seeking to address DE&I effectively. These include
- Revamping diversity training: Organizations could update their diversity training programs to include statistical literacy and in particular how to adjust for population imbalances when evaluating candidate performance to reduce unintended discrimination.
- Revising performance evaluation metrics: Companies could consider revising their performance evaluation metrics to account for population imbalances in the workforce. By incorporating adjustments for relative group size, organizations can obtain more accurate insights into the performance of employees from different demographic groups and make more equitable hiring and promotion decisions.
- Implementing blind recruitment practices: To mitigate the influence of population neglect bias, organizations can adopt blind recruitment practices, which remove identifying demographic information from applications during the initial review process. This helps ensure that hiring decisions are based on merit rather than preconceived notions about certain demographic groups.
- Monitoring and reporting progress: Policymakers could require organizations to monitor and report their progress on DE&I goals, including the impact of measures taken to address population neglect bias. Regular reporting helps maintain accountability and can highlight areas where additional efforts are needed to achieve more equitable outcomes.
Acknowledging and addressing this bias can lead to more equitable hiring and promotion practices, better representation of minority groups, and ultimately, more diverse and inclusive workforces