Hiring Biases: A Closer Look
How many biases have we come across at the hiring stage? We imagine we hire the right fit, but what happens in the due course? What sets our triggers, and do we observe ourselves closely enough for this?
Here are a few hiring biases, which may sound very vague, but did affect many, including me. These are primarily behavioral issues. Most of the categories were experienced during large-scale recruitment drives, where achieving the target was almost a bigger goal than hiring the right fit!
'Feel Good' Bias
Candidates who seemingly appeared less toxic were given a higher score by almost everyone in my team, eventually offering them the job.
'Not-So-Needy' Bias
This happens regularly, especially during large recruitment drives. Candidates who seem too eager and genuinely in need of the job appear tense. Whereas others, who may not have as high a requirement, look more confident and hence often secure it!
'Brand-Name' Bias
The process suddenly speeds up the moment a talent from a Tier-1 firm is being interviewed. There might be better candidates, but the brand suddenly weighs upon everything else.
'Halo' Bias
Few candidates, who were either high achievers in some organization or referred by some power center, would sweep through the rounds, only to later realize that it wasn't as good as it was sold.
'Long-Day' Bias
This is one of the worst biases ever! Each time we had a weekend drive, most of our rejects would be during the first half of the day. We were sick of explaining it to the teams, but to no avail. It's only after the lunch break, when the pressure to achieve the numbers would begin, that candidates would suddenly start clearing almost all the rounds. Yes, it is bad, but it isn't limited to the drives; it spans over the entire hiring cycle.
'Too Good at the Interview Round' Bias
This happens when the candidate is extremely good at clearing the rounds. The interviewer almost misses the point of matching the expectations of the candidate. A very long time back, we hired a group of extremely well-spoken MBA-IT for an ITO project. They were excellent at the interview rounds. But the moment they joined in and realized what an ITO was, they ran away at their topmost speed!
The only reason why I have shared this is that being aware of a bias is almost a remedy of its own. Did I have a chance to see through all of them? No, I didn't. I tried firefighting as much as I could, but all went in vain!
The performance of the new hires depends on many supporting functions. We may not be entirely responsible for a bad hire all the time. However, acting out of a trigger might backfire. Please share if you have experienced any.
How many biases have we come across at the hiring stage? We imagine we hire the right fit, but what happens in the due course? What sets our triggers, and do we observe ourselves closely enough for this?
Here are a few hiring biases, which may sound very vague, but did affect many, including me. These are primarily behavioral issues. Most of the categories were experienced during large-scale recruitment drives, where achieving the target was almost a bigger goal than hiring the right fit!
'Feel Good' Bias
Candidates who seemingly appeared less toxic were given a higher score by almost everyone in my team, eventually offering them the job.
'Not-So-Needy' Bias
This happens regularly, especially during large recruitment drives. Candidates who seem too eager and genuinely in need of the job appear tense. Whereas others, who may not have as high a requirement, look more confident and hence often secure it!
'Brand-Name' Bias
The process suddenly speeds up the moment a talent from a Tier-1 firm is being interviewed. There might be better candidates, but the brand suddenly weighs upon everything else.
'Halo' Bias
Few candidates, who were either high achievers in some organization or referred by some power center, would sweep through the rounds, only to later realize that it wasn't as good as it was sold.
'Long-Day' Bias
This is one of the worst biases ever! Each time we had a weekend drive, most of our rejects would be during the first half of the day. We were sick of explaining it to the teams, but to no avail. It's only after the lunch break, when the pressure to achieve the numbers would begin, that candidates would suddenly start clearing almost all the rounds. Yes, it is bad, but it isn't limited to the drives; it spans over the entire hiring cycle.
'Too Good at the Interview Round' Bias
This happens when the candidate is extremely good at clearing the rounds. The interviewer almost misses the point of matching the expectations of the candidate. A very long time back, we hired a group of extremely well-spoken MBA-IT for an ITO project. They were excellent at the interview rounds. But the moment they joined in and realized what an ITO was, they ran away at their topmost speed!
The only reason why I have shared this is that being aware of a bias is almost a remedy of its own. Did I have a chance to see through all of them? No, I didn't. I tried firefighting as much as I could, but all went in vain!
The performance of the new hires depends on many supporting functions. We may not be entirely responsible for a bad hire all the time. However, acting out of a trigger might backfire. Please share if you have experienced any.