Ensuring Fairness in Assessment and Selection 

Amberjack helps future focused organisations bridge the gap between today and tomorrow.

Is your assessment and selection process job relevant? Does the candidate understand how your assessment is relevant to the job they are applying for? If not, then they probably don’t think the process is fair. Relevance is one of the biggest factors impacting perceived fairness of an assessment and selection process. 

After reading the CIPD’s 2023 scientific review of 46 studies on fair selection created in collaboration with the Institute for Employment Studies, Amberjack’s Head of Assessment and Chartered Psychologist, Martin Kavanagh, explored the evidence, and its implications, in our latest webinar with the Institute of Student Employers. 

Fair Selection: An Evidence Review 

There’s lots to learn from the CIPD’s meta-analysis. Full of practical recommendations, the review is an in-depth look at an incredibly important topic, especially in the Early Careers industry and for high volume recruiters. 

Stereotype Threat 

A key point that struck us when reading through the CIPD’s review is the impact stereotype threat can have in an assessment process. To Amberjack, it’s such an important consideration that, before diving into candidate perception, we would like to consider Stereotype Threat in more detail. 

Stereotype Threat 
stɛrɪəˌtaɪp 

noun 

A disruptive psychological state experienced when someone feels at risk for confirming a negative stereotype associated with their social identity, such as race, gender, ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, etc. 

By inadvertently triggering stereotype threats, you can have a big impact on the fairness of your process. 

Jacksch and Klehe carried out an experimental study on the impact of being transparent about the behaviours that are being assessed in an assessment process.  

They gave a group of students an exercise assessing ‘planning skills’. When they were transparent about what they were assessing, there was no difference in candidate performance between male and females. However, this changed when they were assessed for ‘leadership skills’. When there was transparency, a disproportionate disadvantage in female candidates was evident, i.e. when told that ‘leadership skills’ were being assessed, female candidates performed worse. 

The explanation given was that this transparency around assessing leadership skills triggered a stereotype threat; traditionally, women have been encouraged to be less assertive and they are more likely to see men in leadership positions. Now believing that they are at risk of confirming this stereotype, the transparency increases cognitive load, and they actually perform worse. 

It’s important to carefully consider your assessment activities and how you present them within your recruitment process, to ensure you are getting the best out of all your candidates. 

The Research and Practical Suggestions 

Clarity and Relevance 

Diving into the CIPD’s research in full, we can see that perceived job relevance by candidates has a big impact on fairness perceptions. 

Making a clear link between what you’re assessing, how you’re assessing it, and why this is relevant, is particularly key for perceptions of fairness.  

This is most relevant at the early stages of an assessment process. Off-the-shelf cognitive ability tests or situational judgement tests (SJTs) are often used upfront in high volume processes to reduce candidate numbers to a more manageable level. However, if the candidate can’t see a link between what they’re being asked to do and the role they’re applying for, that can have a big impact on their perceptions of fairness and subsequently their likelihood of staying in the process. 

Communicating the process and a clear explanation of the stages is vital to fairness – but keep in mind our discussion about stereotype threat. 

Careful Consideration of Language 

We need to avoid assessments becoming tests of verbal reasoning as a result of the language used rather than by design. Are you using plain English? Is there any unnecessary jargon? Are you using words that might work best only for people whose first language is English? These questions are important to review. 

Candidate feedback is an area where the proactive consideration of language is important.  

We often see that organisations focus their feedback approach on avoiding candidate comebacks or legal challenges, resulting in unnatural communications and candidates leaving a process feeling like they haven’t reached a good outcome. Feedback can be provided in a safe, fair way whilst still providing detail and value to candidates. Commonly, we see… ‘you were rejected for these reasons’ rather than mention of what a candidate actually did well.  

By providing information on what the top candidates did to get through, and how the candidate who is the focus of the feedback could have gone about being considered one of these top candidates, you can help a candidate find value and actionable feedback. 

Positive phrasing, avoiding sweeping statements and generalisations about the candidate, and being clear that the decisions are made based on the 30-45 minutes exercise only, are givens, and help to create a more positive impression. 

This careful consideration shouldn’t just exist around the words and phrases you use in your communications, but also around the timing of these. Research by Kondadt et al., (2020) found that giving your candidates your decision and feedback as soon after the assessment as possible increases the perception of fairness.  

The longer the decision is withheld, the more the perception of fairness decreases… with one exception: avoid sharing your decision on the very same day as the assessment. While it might seem like you’re demonstrating efficiency and consideration of candidate time, research actually shows that providing a same day decision causes a big drop-off in perceived fairness. 

Technology and Artificial Intelligence 

Increasingly, candidates believe that they will be scored automatically by AI, rather than by a human, especially in the case of video interviews. If you’re using manual screening, tell your candidates! This easy action can do wonders for your perceived fairness. 

Another hot topic in this area is the face-to-face vs. virtual assessment debate. Early Career Talent like an engaging face-to-face experience as well as the convenience of being able to complete an assessment at home. It’s difficult trying to satisfy both audiences. There is however one important consideration to be aware of: the same exercise given in a face-to-face environment, was more harshly scored in a virtual setting. 

Reflection 

Overall, the CIPD’s recent research into perceived fairness in an assessment process provides a comprehensive understanding of candidate perceptions and how these can be impacted at large by even the smallest considerations.  

We’ve picked out the learnings most applicable to what we do at Amberjack, but each individual organisation will likely find something different which attracts their interest. To watch the webinar in full, and hear Martin answer the audience’s burning questions on these topics, you can view the recording on the Institute of Student Employers’ YouTube channel. 

With a lot to think about, it can be difficult to consider every single aspect of your assessment process which could be creating perceptions of unfairness. This is where we come in. To discover how Amberjack can help evaluate, design, and optimise your assessment process, our Assessment Services can be found here

Share this Article

Related Articles

Testimonials

What Our Clients Have to Say

Scroll to Top