The case against asking

• Doing so is likely to perpetuate any gender pay gap, because pay decisions will be influenced by past (and arguably discriminatory) practices.
• Remuneration offered to each candidate should be based solely on their skills, experience and the value of the work to the employer.
• There may be valid reasons why some applicants have been paid more than others in the past (eg they worked in high-cost or high-paying geographical locations) but those reasons may also have been discriminatory. In either case, they should no longer be relevant.
• Not asking about remuneration reduces the risk of a future discrimination claim being brought against the employer – even if the employer did not intend to discriminate when asking the question.
• An applicant may have been historically underpaid (or overpaid) in the past in relation to his/her skills and ability, and relying on the historical information may influence the employer to make inaccurate comparisons between applicants. A lower-paid employee may in fact be more accomplished and more suitable.
• If an applicant has a history of being underpaid, they may have lower expectations of future employers, and could be taken advantage of.
• Given cost-saving pressures that often arise in recruitment, that pressure may take precedence over merit when comparing applicants.

The case against banning it

A “band-aid” approach?

The legal position in Australia

What does it even mean to be innovative in the HR world today? Is it introducing more technology into the business, or is it really trying to understand the connection between people and the organization? Or maybe it is just a balance of both of those things. But how do you prioritize to ensure the best possible solutions for all parties involved?

In order for HR to be innovative and maintain a seat at the table, we have to be open to new ideas and new concepts — ideas and concepts that could possibly be seen as untraditional, unstructured or just plain unorthodox. As an HR professional and/or manager, how do you stay innovative and ensure that you are attracting and retaining top talent?

Let me guess: It starts with your recruitment process. The recruiting process likely entails a series of interviews, asking some serious knock-out questions for candidates and overall determining fit based on your knowledge of the organization. And all of that sounds great; however, I would propose a process with little less structure. Yes, less — that allows the interviewer to be themselves and the candidate as well.

I believe the recruitment process should be about making a connection for all parties involved. Often, we make the recruitment process about the organization and never get real insight as to what the other person's "why" is. Instead, we focus on the schedule and the process of elimination in order to secure the right people. I would challenge my fellow HR professionals and managers to try something new that gives you an overall better insight into candidates.

My recommendation is to put aside the interview questions that look and feel like this:

• Tell me about a situation when ...

• How do you handle stress?

• What are your greatest strengths and weaknesses?

• Tell me about a time when ...

Let’s be honest: Most candidates have been rehearsing the answers to these questions for years. Preparation for almost everyone is about fine-tuning answers to the typical and most-asked interview questions. It is time to start focusing on people as individuals during the interview process.

The easiest way to make a connection is to simply start with the classic, "Tell me about yourself" and let that guide the conversation for the interview. Put on your active listening ears, and engage from there. This allows you as the HR professional and/or manager to truly be present and tap into your intuition. It gives you the opportunity to make a decision that supports the organization's values and the individual's values as well.

Now I know you are probably thinking: What makes this process fair when I’m not asking each candidate the same questions? Is the process really fair at all once we start to making judgments and insert our own biases to arrive at a final decision anyway?

It’s a new day to try something that allows for meaningful connections that ultimately create the best situations for all parties involved. There is a lot of power associated with being connected to the people around you and allowing space for great synergies. When you are able to create great synergies, it makes room for better collaboration and a bigger impact, which ultimately supports the organization's bottom line.

Discrimination during the recruitment process is sadly not a well-documented element of the hiring process in South Africa. While discrimination and biased recruitment are more controlled in today's times, this is still a factor that many Job Seekers have to contend with on a daily basis.

 ____________________
Originally posted on jobs.co.za

It is the Recruiters responsibility to ensure that social-economic inequalities are correctly addressed and that employers are safely guided through their employment requirements in the most socially cohesive manner.

Each employer may have a very specific hiring requirement based on shareholder or investor policies. This is a common 'hiring' denominator in South African recruitment with the prevalence of employment equity quota requirements to which Recruiters need always pay close attention to. While this is a frequent requirement, Recruiters are required to market such vacancies to the relevant Job Seekers in the least biased manner possible, so as to avoid blatant and direct candidate discrimination.

The percentage of job adverts that are transparently discriminatory is staggering and in most cases, the Recruiter is unaware of the dangers they expose themselves, as well as the clients too, by carelessly wording their job adverts. Recruiters must be aware, at all times, of the legal obligations they need always adhere to so as to avoid discrimination against Job Seekers. Not only do prejudice job adverts damage the integrity of the Recruiter, but severe legal repercussions can be brought about by injudicious job marketing.

Recruiters must guard against unintentional discrimination against all Job Seekers during each phase of the recruitment process and not forget that this, in fact, begins with the job advert itself.

 According to Jobs.co.za, the most common forms of discrimination found in recruitment and more specifically job adverts today include;

• Ageism
• Sexism
• Racism
• Religion and Political Following
• New Age Discrimination ( Disability, HIV/ Aids Status, Marital Status, Family set up and Pregnancy and Sexual orientation)

Here are some basic guidelines that Recruiters can apply when drafting an unbiased job advert based on the above common forms of Job Seeker discrimination. These will help in marketing the relevant vacancy to applicable Job Seekers based on employer hiring specifications while not risking the possibility of discrimination against any Job Seeker in the advert.

Ageism:

Ageism is where candidates are discriminated against based on their age and experience. While each role requires a certain level of ability this may not be clearly defined by a Job Seekers age or number of years experience. Many Recruiters may argue this fact and while some may not agree, when terming this requirement in your job advert, care needs to be taken in the choice of words used.

Avoid specifying age ranges of the applicant as well as using words such as 'young and dynamic' or 'mature'. In using such terms Recruiters are blatantly stipulating an age range or requirement that applicants must fall into. Remember that a candidate's ability is not dependant on how old or young they may be but rather how best they are equipped to perform the job function.

Recruiters should rather try to state the hierarchy of the role within the company by stating that the 'maturity' of the role itself as opposed to the person required to fill it. For example; junior web designer position, senior sales manager, or mid-weight copyrighter. In describing the level at which the role falls in the hierarchy of the company itself, no person is being discriminated against but rather the role itself is better described for the candidates own interpretation.

Sexism:

Some Recruiters may argue that sexism has become a thing of the past and no longer are men and women contending against such biased recruitment. This form of discrimination has certainly calmed however careless mistakes are continued to be made in job adverts that result in legal ramifications no Recruiter wants to have to deal with. Sexual discrimination is where gender, male or female, is given employment preference over other genders. True is it to say that some circumstances do call for male vs. female favouring and in such cases no candidate would dispute such a specification. The problem occurs when each gender is equipped with equal skill to perform a task diligently and still preference is given to one over the other. Common mistakes are made here simply in the wording of the job advert and again can be easily avoided by paying closer attention when preparing the job advert. Avoid terms that are weighted with female/ male connotations such as, 'Saleslady', 'Fireman', 'Girl Friday', rather term these as; 'Sales Person', 'Firefighter' or 'Personal Assistant'.

Racism:

Discriminating against Job Seekers based on their ethnicity and ethnic grouping is a form of discrimination that has affected societies throughout the ages. In today's time, this has been effectively balanced through legislation and employment equity policies strictly applied throughout the world. While this is so, sadly racism is still experienced in certain instances and in fact similarly so, reverse racism. Based on employment equity policies and the employment equity act in South Africa, Recruiters need to be very careful of discriminating against any ethnic groups, minority nor majority when creating a job advert. Most Recruiters tend to clearly state the ethic grouping they are recruiting for excluding Caucasian grouping.  While employment equity policies approve the transparent disclosure of employment equity positions, it is considered good etiquette for Recruiters to practice some tact in the choice of words used in their job advert. Should Recruiters specifically be looking for employment equity candidates, it is recommended that instead of advertising the role for 'Black, Indian or Asian' ethnicity groups, Recruiters are recommended to word employment equity roles as such; Company X is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer, or Role Y is an employment equity position and open to such applications.

Religion and Political Following:

While this is not as common as the above forms of discrimination in job advertising, Recruiters are reminded that this too is in fact, a form of discrimination liable for arbitration. Whether it is based on a person's religious belief or political followings, a candidate's success may not be judged on either of these set of beliefs. While no person may be discriminated against such personal choices, so too are Recruiters barred from stating such requirements in the job advert.  This simply has no factor or weight in assessing a persons ability to perform a given job function and may not be criteria for shortlisting Job Seekers.

New Age Discrimination: (Disability, HIV/ Aids Status, Marital Status, Family set up and Pregnancy and Sexual orientation)

New age discrimination affects Job Seekers in various different realms. As stated, these include Disability, HIV/ Aids Status, Marital Status, Family set up and/ Pregnancy and Sexual Orientation.

It is only under very precise and specific circumstances that Recruiters are permitted to request the disclosure of such personal detail, let alone state these as a pre-requisite for a role in a job advertisement. Recruiters hiring for very niche' roles may or may not have the permissions in order to request the divulgence of such information and may only do so under specific situations. Should the outcome of this information have no bearing on the candidate's ability to perform the advertised role, Recruiters will be considered to be discriminating against should they even so much as enquire after such Job Seeker detail. Such discrimination can very often be considered the worst form of prejudices, as these simple details are often enquired after appearing to be 'ice-breaking' questions, when in fact the Recruiter may judge a candidates success in filling a vacancy based on their personal response.

Recruiters are required to remember at all times that the purpose of the job advert is to market the role to relevant Job Seekers so as to attract the best skill available to fill the vacancy. By perhaps including tactless requirements or hasty specifications, not only are they exposing themselves to the dangers of persecution, but at the same time unknowingly chasing away relevant applicants too. No Job Seeker wants to work for a discriminatory company, let alone be associated with a recruitment agent who dares so much as to cross boundaries of prejudices and pass biases within their job advert

____________________
Originally posted on jobs.co.za