Search results

Hiring managers commonly rely on system-justifying motives and attitudes during résumé screening. Given the prevalent use of modern résumé formats (e.g. LinkedIn) that include not only an applicant's credentials but also headshot photographs, visible sources of information such as an applicant's race are also revealed while a hiring manager simultaneously evaluates a candidate's suitability. As a result, such screening is likely to activate evaluation bias. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of a hiring manager's perceptions of race-system justification, that is, support for the status quo in relations between Black and White job candidates in reinforcing or mitigating hiring bias related to in-group and out-group membership during résumé screening.

Drawing from system justification theory (SJT) in a pre-selection context, in an experimental study involving 174 human resource managers, the authors tested two boundary conditions of the expected relationship between hiring manager and job candidate race on candidate ratings: (1) a hiring manager's affirmative action (AA) attitudes and system-justifying attitudes and (2) a job candidate's manipulated suitability for a position. This approach enabled us to juxtapose the racial composition of hiring manager–job candidate dyads under conditions in which the job candidate's race and competency for a posted position were manipulated to examine the conditions under which White and Black hiring managers are likely to make biased evaluations. The authors largely replicated these findings in two follow-up studies with 261 students and 361 online raters.

The authors found that information on a candidate's objective suitability for a job resulted in opposite-race positive bias among Black evaluators and same-race positive bias among White evaluators in study 1 alone. Conversely, positive attitudes toward AA policies resulted in in-group favoritism and strengthened a positive same-race bias for Black evaluators (study 1 and 2). We replicated this finding with a third sample to directly test system-justifying attitudes (study 3). The way in which White raters rated White candidates reflected the same attitudes against systems (AA attitudes) that Black raters rating Black candidates exhibited in the authors’ first two studies. Positive system-justifying attitudes or positive attitudes toward AA did not, however, translate into the elevation of same-race candidate ratings of suitability above those of opposite-race candidates.

Although the size of the sample is on par with the percentage of Blacks nationwide in private-sector managerial-level positions ideally, the authors would have preferred to oversample Black HR managers. Given the scarcity of focus on Black HR managers, future researchers, using diverse samples of evaluators should also consider not only managers' and candidates' race but also their social dominance orientation. Moreover, it is important that future researchers use more racially diverse samples from other industries to more fully identify the ways in which the dynamics of system-justifying processes can emerge to influence evaluation bias during résumé screening.

Advances in technology pose new challenges to HR hiring practices. This study attempts to fill a void regarding the unintended effects of bias during digital résumé screening. These trends have important HR implications. Initial screening of a job applicant's credentials while concurrently viewing the individual's photograph is likely to activate subconscious evaluation bias, produces inaccurate applicant ratings. This study's findings should caution hiring managers about the potential for bias to arise when viewing job candidates' digital résumés and encourage them to carefully examine various boundary conditions on racial similarity bias effects on applicant pre-screening and subsequent hiring decisions.

The study’s results suggest that bias might be attenuated as organizational leaders engage in efforts to understand their system-justifying motives and examine perceptions of the workplace social hierarchy (i.e. responses to status hierarchies) linked to perceptions of the status quo. For example, understanding how system justifying motives influence evaluation bias will inform how best to design training and other interventions that link discussions of workforce diversity to the relationships among groups within the organization's social hierarchy. This line of research should be further explored to better understand the complex forces at work when hiring managers adopt system-justifying motives during hiring evaluations.

The authors address the limitations of prior research by examining interactions between boundary conditions in a real-world context using real human resources hiring managers and more contemporary personnel-screening practices to test changes in the direction and strength of the relationship between hiring manager–job candidate race and hiring manager evaluations. Thus, the authors’ findings have implications for hiring bias and understanding of system-justification processes, particularly regarding how, when and why hiring managers support the status quo (i.e. perpetuate inequity) even if they are disadvantaged as a result.

The aim of this paper was to assess the main and interactive effects of job applicant conscientiousness, and nurturing job demands on ratings of overweight female applicants on job suitability and a hiring recommendation. It also examined relations between rater ethnicity and ratings of the job suitability of normal and overweight applicants.

The study used a 2×2×2 experimental design and data from 400 individuals (201 Anglos and 199 Hispanics) with hiring experience to test the study's hypotheses. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions, and asked to review a resume and picture of a normal or overweight applicant. Then, they were asked to rate the applicant's job suitability and make a hiring recommendation.

The results revealed that: overweight female applicants were rated as more suitable for jobs and more likely to be recommended for hire when they had high rather than low conscientiousness; Hispanics were more likely to recommend overweight applicants for hire than Anglos; and there was a three-way interaction among applicant weight, rater ethnicity, and nurturing job demands for the hiring recommendation criterion.

The study was conducted in a simulated hiring context. Thus, research is needed to determine if the results generalize to actual work settings.

The results suggest that organizations should provide decision makers with detailed information about applicants' conscientiousness, and the nurturing demands of jobs. When these types of information are presented, raters are less likely to display weight-based bias.

Previous research on weight-based bias was not based on a theoretical model, but the present study used a theoretical framework to guide the development of hypotheses (Stone and Colella, 1996; Stone et al., 1992). In addition, it is the first study to examine the effects of overweight applicant conscientiousness and stereotype-job fit on ratings of job suitability, and differences between Hispanic and Anglo views of overweight applicants.

Numerous studies have shown that minority workers are disadvantaged in the labour market due to stereotypes and discrimination. However, published research on résumé screening has overlooked the effects of multiple social categorisations pertaining to candidates' gender, education and origin. This study addresses this gap and examines whether the gender, the level of education and the national origin cues mentioned in the résumé affect the perceived employability of candidates.

This study employs an experimental between-subjects factorial design in that 12 résumés varying in gender, education and national origin were rated by 373 Portuguese working adults.

The results documented a gender premium as women were favoured in interpersonal and job skills but not in job suitability, and an education premium, since higher educated candidates were preferred despite their gender and origin. No meaningful interactions for gender × education × national origin were observed, which suggests that ingroup favouritism and outgroup discrimination in résumé screening can be averted.

The findings endorse a multidimensional view of perceived employability by investigating candidates' skills and job suitability from the viewpoint of the decision-makers, which extends our understanding of résumé-screening discrimination. This is critical to prevent hiring discrimination at an earlier career stage, which can increase youth employment and enhance the integration in the labour market of local minorities such as women, inexperienced workers and second-generation immigrants.

The purpose of the present research is to test the hypothesis that hiring decisions are influenced by the perceived femininity and masculinity of candidates as inferred from their career history.

Two job selection simulation studies were conducted in which students with and without personnel selection experience assessed the suitability of male and female job candidates for male and female sex‐typed jobs. The candidate's CVs varied with regard to the gender typicality of the candidate's career history.

As predicted, when they previously had occupied another gender atypical job, both men and women were perceived as more suitable for a job that is more typical of the opposite gender. These decisions were mediated fully for women and partially for men by the impact of the gender typicality of the candidate's career on their perceived masculinity or femininity. In addition, men who had a gender atypical career history were perceived as less suitable for gender typical jobs. Thus, for men a gender atypical career history can serve as a “double edged sword.” Importantly, experienced and inexperienced decision makers were equally subject to this effect.

Career history provides individuating information about a candidate over and above the skills and experiences they are likely to have. Gender type is one such information that is pertinent in a job market that divides jobs into male and female typical and makes hiring decisions on this basis. Previous research has largely ignored this aspect of career history.

Although statistical evidence clearly demonstrates discrimination against foreign‐accented individuals in the workplace, surprisingly little research attention has been paid to how such individuals are evaluated when they apply for jobs. Thus, the aim of this paper is to examine the effects of applicant accent on access‐related employment decisions across four jobs that differed on job status and communication demands.

The study used a 3 (applicant accent: Standard American English, French, and Japanese) × 2 (job status: low vs high)×2 (communication demands: low vs high) mixed‐factorial design, and data from 286 college students at two different locations.

Results show that in comparison with French‐accented applicants, Japanese‐accented applicants fared worse on employment‐related decisions, especially for jobs that had high communication demands, even after controlling for applicant understandability and location. French‐accented applicants were viewed as favorably as, or more favorably than, Standard American English‐accented applicants.

Applicant accent was confounded with applicant names. Thus, it is not known whether the obtained results are due to applicant accent, names, or both.

It was found that organizations could do one of the following: use structured interviews; train interviewers on potential biases against foreign‐accented applicants; and provide more individuating information to reduce the effects of accent‐based stereotypes on employment‐related decisions.

The paper considers the communication demands of jobs and job status as influences on the evaluation of foreign‐accented applicants.

The authors used signaling theory to explain negative perceptions of individuals on the autism spectrum (IotAS) in the job interview and explored whether parasocial contact could improve perceptions.

Participants were randomly assigned across six experimental conditions. Some received information that IotAS' social and communication differences prevent them from attaining jobs they could perform (information), some received this information and watched a video showing IotAS working competently (parasocial contact) and others were exposed to neither information nor video (control). Participants then watched a mock interview of a job candidate presenting as an IotAS or neurotypical and gave their first impressions of him, perceptions of his job suitability and selection decision.

Participants had less favorable first impressions of the IotAS-presenting candidate and perceived him as having lower job suitability and were therefore less likely to select him. Parasocial contact had no effect. However, participants who had received information that IotAS' differences keep them from being hired for jobs they could do perceived the IotAS-presenting candidate as more suitable for the job and had greater intentions to interact with and select him.

The authors enhance understanding of autism in the workplace by explaining how IotAS' signaling behavior during a job interview impedes their selection. The authors also provide evidence that a brief message that IotAS' social and communication differences keep them from securing jobs they could perform can promote IotAS' selection by focusing decision-makers on their job-relevant qualifications.

This study aims to examine the impact of applicant weight and sex, job type and employer attitudes on employee screening decisions.

Participants rated one of four job applicants on their hiring suitability for four different entry‐level jobs with high or low visibility and physical demands. Applicants varied in sex and weight as depicted in a photograph, but their job applications were identical.

Results showed that overweight women experienced weight discrimination when applying for a job that was high in both visibility and physical demands.

Future research should examine weight discrimination in other racial and ethnic groups and with higher‐level jobs. Future research could also examine hiring decisions using a within‐subjects design to allow comparison across job applicants.

Employers' perceptions of applicant weight may lead them to make biased decisions about individuals who are overweight during the hiring process particularly for jobs that are high in visibility and physical demands.

There has been an alarming increase in obesity rates in the USA, but there is limited legal protection against weight discrimination. Employers who make stereotyped assumptions about individuals who are overweight may be missing out on valuable workforce talent. Similarly, individuals who are overweight may face discriminatory obstacles in finding work.

This study systematically manipulated two important job characteristics: visibility and physical demands and used a sample of adults as raters.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

This research paper concentrates on the digital competencies of graduates applying for economist and business manager roles, and how these are perceived by employers assessing their suitability for a job. Surveying the respondents revealed that, in descending order, the digital competencies of content development, problem solving, security, and communication are sought after by employers during candidate suitability assessment exercises, whereas competency in digital information management isn't universally expected.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the role of interviewee anxiety as a predictor of perceived hireability (Study 1, n=82) and job suitability (Study 2, n=74).

Using an experimental design, participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions (an audio recording of either a confident or anxious job candidate with identical scripts) and asked to take the role of an interviewer.

The anxious interviewee (played by an actor) was consistently rated as less hireable (in a combined sample based on Studies and 2), less suitable to the job and received less favorable hiring recommendations (as assessed in Study 2) than the confident interviewee (played by the same actor).

The study was conducted with students who may have less interview experience than experienced interviewers.

The results suggest that anxiety has a negative biasing effect on perceived hireability and job suitability ratings. In other words, the behavioral manipulation of anxiety affects hireability ratings, independent of any subjective assessment of anxiety.

The findings provide evidence of an anxiety bias in telephone interview settings. The results highlight the importance of considering anxiety cues when training employment interviewers.

The original legislation which introduced the redundancy payments scheme was the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. This was the first of the substantive statutory individual employment rights given to an employee; other individual employment rights, as for example, the right not to be unfairly dismissed, followed some years later. The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 has been repealed and the provisions on redundancy are now to be found in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.