Problem
It is important to note that the problem of discrimination is a pervasive one, which can manifest itself in a wide range of settings and processes. One of such discriminatory practices can be observed in the hiring process during the resume review stages, where an act of discrimination is done on the basis of a candidate’s name. A person’s name usually reflects his or her cultural, ethnic, and racial background, which can be spotted by the hiring personnel. This is the point at which racist biases and prejudices can slip in, resulting in discrimination. The marginalized groups include minority groups, such as African Americans and other people of color, as well as ethnic groups.
Problem Dimensions
It should be noted that the problem stated is multidimensional because it does not have a rigid and structured form. In other words, discrimination can be manifested mildly, harshly, intentionally, and unintentionally. Evidence suggests that “minority job applicants are “whitening” their resumes by deleting references to their race with the hope of boosting their shot at jobs, and research shows the strategy is paying off” (Gerdeman, 2017, para. 1). In other words, minority candidates are altering and tinkering with their resumes to use White names and excluding details that might indicate their racial or ethnic identity. Another dimension of the issue is the fact that so-called pro-diversity groups also discriminate to meet their ‘quotas.’ Thus, resume discrimination affects even the majority, such as White applicants, as well. The third dimension lies in gender bias, which can also be easily spotted by looking at someone’s name. However, a person’s resume can be reflective of disability, sexuality, and socioeconomic class to a lesser extent. Therefore, the most vulnerable groups include racial and ethnic minorities, people with specific and unique cultural backgrounds, and individuals with non-binary genders.
Solutions
There are a number of plausible solutions, which range from individual tricks to policy-based interventions. The most effective and practical solution is to mandate an anonymous resume screening, which can be reinforced by both companies, organizations, and policies. It is reported that “in this way, recruiters need to focus on work-related criteria like skills, training, work experience, and education” (Adamovic, 2020, p. 460). The justification is the fact that “the lack of information about the personal background of candidates makes it more difficult to engage in discriminatory behavior” (Adamovic, 2020, p. 460). Thus, anonymous resume screening should become the norm of the hiring process, which can either be promoted by the organizations themselves as a part of ethical practice or through policies in a mandated manner.
A strictly policy-based approach is plausible when it comes to making it obligatory to report the reasoning behind the selection of specific candidates. It is stated that policies can be designed to “should invite a group of HR professionals responsible for recruiting to participate in providing more relevant findings for practice” (Adamovic, 2020, p. 460). In other words, the reporting system can be developed to ensure that specific reasoning is highlighted about the selection and non-selection. Specific programs can be utilized to standardize the hiring process, where candidates cannot be discriminated against (Klehe & Hooft, 2018). This would require a significant investment of millions of dollars, but the total cost of reducing discrimination during the screening process can benefit both employers and applicants since it will be standardized.
On an individual level, applicants should seek to identify the discriminatory practices and report the incidents. This can be done by adhering to the network of other applicants and proving victimhood. However, this solution is the least effective one, and it is questionable if one should engage in it all. In addition, they can also attempt to hide their racial or ethnic belonging since the reality is that a candidate needs employment, and there is no reason to be at a disadvantage due to these discriminatory practices.
List of Beneficiaries
- African Americans.
- Native Americans.
- Asian Americans.
- Latino Americans.
- White Americans.
- Women.
- LGBTQ+.
- Minority cultures.
- People with disabilities.
- Employers, such as businesses, shareholders, and other organizations.
List of Staffing
- HR discrimination experts.
- Diverse HR staff.
- IT specialists.
Evaluation
The overall success of the proposed interventions can be measured both locally and across all companies by comparing the diversity indexes before and after the measures are applied. The application rejection rate can also be measured among the members of disadvantaged communities or groups. A software tool can be deployed to track and monitor the rate of hiring of specific minority groups with the distribution of these individuals in the application stages. For example, if 50% of all applicants were women and 20% were African Americans, the tool could measure whether or not a similar proportion of these groups were eventually hired. In other words, the initial proportional distribution will be measured compared to the proportional distribution of the hired individuals. The results should be shared with US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as well as the applicants. Moving forwards, the results will inform if specific forms of discrimination are taking place in the resume screening process. Although the proposed solution might not be ideal, it will be the right step towards equality and equity, with many potential improvements possible.
References
Adamovic, M. (2020). Analyzing discrimination in recruitment: A guide and best practices for resume studies. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 445-464.
Gerdeman, D. (2017). Minorities who ‘whiten’ job resumes get more interviews. Harvard Business School.
Klehe, U. C., & Hooft, E. V. (2018). The Oxford handbook of job loss and job search. Oxford University Press.