Evelina Silveira, President, Diversity at Work in London Inc. Author of Diversity and Inclusion on a Budget: How to have a more innovative and engaged workforce with little or no dollars.
Equity statements on job postings have become part of the norm, implying the applicant has a fair shot at a job. If the ultimate goal is to hire the best person for the job, then some very common unfair workplace practices may be getting in the way. Let’s take a look at how allowing candidates to circumvent the hiring process throws equity out of the window.
A candidate may have “supporters” in the organization who would like him/her to be hired. The supporters may approach the hiring committee or senior leaders to advocate for the candidate. While this may be advantageous to the candidate and a time-saver for the hiring committee, how might this sit for an applicant who doesn’t have an “in” with the organization? If the supporters are successful, their candidate will be hired.
What happens to the other people who have applied? Your best candidate may have been waiting in the pile of resumes, which did not get your attention because of the “support” one candidate received.
What implication does this have on diversity and workplace inclusion? Immense. You ended up hiring very similar people. What is the effect on innovation? Abysmal. New Canadians, people who live out of town, youth, people with disabilities, aboriginal people and those who may be entering the workforce for the first time don’t stand a chance, unless “they know someone.”
In terms of succession planning, you may see very little in the way of diversity, creating huge implications for organizational profitably as well as innovation, not to mention corporate image.
If the situation I have described has become part of your organization’s hiring procedures, there is a good chance it has become well known. Do you want the word out that: “You need to know someone, to get a job”? Or would you prefer applicants have an equitable chance of getting hired as your equity statement would imply?
The hiring process should be transparent all of the way. If you don’t feel comfortable with writing down the specifics of your hiring process and making it public, there is a good chance it may be inequitable and even illegal.
You can argue that it has always been this way! In the past, we did not include equity statements, but now we do. Consequently, more than ever we need to be accountable for applicants who take the time to answer job ads and treat the process fairly out of respect to them and to the integrity of the organization.
Comments