D
Catalyst | Diversity
Top 10
countries for
gender parity
1 Iceland
“We’re
moving
to future-
focused
assessment
that considers
a person’s
potential,
rather than
their
pedigree”
2 Norway
3 Finland
4 Sweden
5 Nicaragua
6 New Zealand
7 Ireland
8 Spain
9 Rwanda
10 Germany
Source: Global Gender
Gap Report 2020, World
Economic Forum
“That’s a mechanism for adverse
impact, because people will have had
different levels of opportunity which
does not equate to their aptitude,
personality or raw abilities,” he
argues. “We’d recommend measuring
those things rather than over-relying
on academic qualifications.”
Dawas agrees: “We’re moving
to future-focused assessment that
considers a person’s potential,
rather than their pedigree. It’s
about assessing how they respond
to realistic job-based scenarios
rather than their past experience.
We partner with an organisation
called Rare and have implemented its
contextualised recruitment system,
to view applications in the context of
candidates’ personal, socio-economic
and educational background,” he
continues. “We can flag whether
someone is the first in their family to
go to university; whether they were
on free school meals and so on.”
Redman believes “cognitive tests
help level the playing field if designed
well. The questions shouldn’t
suppose you’ve had experience of
certain types of problem,” he says.
“In a numerical test, not everyone at
work now can remember fractions.
Equally, some people (perhaps
from certain cultures) might be less
familiar with specific terms. That’s
not a test of raw ability.”
Ability tests with generous time
limits provide a better measure of
a candidate’s real problem-solving
abilities, he adds. “Our research
shows that it’s less stressful for
candidates and fairer to people who
are processing more slowly, such as
those for whom the test isn’t in their
first language or with a neurodiverse
condition such as dyslexia.
Meanwhile, “situational
judgement tests are great for
inclusion” because they provide
insight into the role being offered and
the skills required. “Anything that
can be seen to make an assessment
feel less like a gruelling test benefits
everyone,” he says. “As soon as
someone is anxious, you won’t see
their strengths coming through.”
While thoughtful use of technology
can support D&I, some solutions
undermine it. For instance, Redman
notes that “tech companies often
arrive at a gamified format for testing
that they think is upbeat and fun but
lose a sense of how different people
might engage with it. It might be
great for young graduates, but how do
older people or those from different
ethnicities respond?”
He reports that video interviews
(often introduced for efficiency
as much as ‘friendliness’) favour
candidates familiar with the tech
and comfortable on screen. “There’s
inbuilt bias,” he says. “But the main
issue is what happens with the results.
If you’re just looking at video footage
of a candidate giving answers to pre-
recorded questions, your evaluation
is likely to be even less objective than
it would be face to face.”
However, he warns that traditional
assessment methods can also
Issue 4 - 2020
61