Natalie Norfus is the Founder & Managing Owner at The Norfus Firm, PLLC, where she partners with employers on DEI and HR strategies.
getty
If you ask an executive in any industry—whether nonprofit or for-profit—to list their primary employment concerns in 2023, the challenges with finding qualified talent will likely be on their list.
This isn’t even hypothetical, as The Conference Board did exactly that at the end of 2022. They talked to 1,131 C-suite members from around the world about the high-focus and high-impact issues they were facing. The Conference Board’s findings were clear: Attracting and retaining talent is a major concern.
Yet, for many companies, there’s been remarkably little innovation in their recruiting processes. Outdated rules of thumb still reign, barring many candidates from clearing the first hiring hurdle: the résumé screening process. In my work, I’ve noticed many résumé biases that prevent people from hiring prospective talent with high potential. These résumé biases include preferences for candidates from elite universities, prejudice against candidates with career gaps and more.
These biases contribute to a paradox: How can a company overcome labor shortages if it is unwilling to reassess its résumé bias review practices?
Don’t get me wrong—résumés do have a place in the hiring process. But hiring managers should be willing to open their minds. Let’s look at a few examples of résumé biases I believe are holding leaders back, and how you can rethink them.
Are you overlooking candidates with employment gaps?
A 2019 study found that candidates with a gap in their résumés were 45% less likely to be invited to an interview. Although this figure may have improved since the pandemic began, a 2021 LinkedIn survey found that over 20% of hiring managers openly admit they won’t hire a candidate with a career gap.
Yet overlooking people who paused paid work spurns many diverse applicants with valuable experience. Sixty-two percent of workers have taken a career gap. The millions of people reflected in this statistic have so much to contribute to the workforce. While they weren’t involved in paid work, they may have accrued valuable skills.
Are you passing on candidates who left a previous job swiftly?
A 2018 study found that people who left a job after less than 15 months were perceived as 43% less hireable. Yet leaving a work environment that isn’t conducive to one’s growth can demonstrate valuable traits like self-awareness and good judgment.
What’s more, research shows that people aren’t staying with their employers as long. Employees aged 35 to 44 change jobs every 4.7 years on average, while employees aged 20 to 24 tend to switch every 1.2 years. We clearly can’t keep judging prospective employees by the same old standards.
Why are you searching for candidates from top-tier schools?
The assumption that candidates from elite educational backgrounds will do great work is deeply embedded in recruitment practices. But this preference is largely unfounded. Recent research has shown that graduates from top-tier universities don’t perform much better in the workplace than graduates from other universities. The researchers found that graduates from universities across rankings have equal motivation, on average, and that students from top-tier institutions may not work as well with others. Simply put, challenging the pervasive preference for elite schools can help you find better fits for your organization.
Do you pass on candidates who don’t meet 100% of the relevant criteria?
Often, the criteria used when recruiting for a role are wielded inflexibly. Yet the criteria tend to be more of a “wish list.” In this regard, many employers are looking for a “unicorn” candidate who has experience in a number of diverging areas—some of which are often unique to the company. When recruiting teams are tied to their “wish list,” candidates with the skills and capabilities to do the job may be overlooked. I always recommend recruiting teams and hiring managers take time to clarify the most important skills and experience types needed for the job to help ensure qualified candidates aren’t overlooked.
What about the potential for résumé bias in applicant tracking systems?
The use of artificial intelligence software to screen applicants’ résumés is becoming increasingly common; 66% of recruiters use AI, often referred to as “applicant tracking systems” or simply “ATS.” But the more popular it gets, the more issues with AI are being brought to light. This software generally reproduces the biases of those who determine their operating criteria. In the recruiting world, we mostly see AI software being programmed to scan résumés against a long list of keywords, and tossing anyone who doesn’t fit into a pre-existing ideal out of consideration. This can amplify prejudices when AI criteria are being used to exclude people with certain characteristics, such as applicants who have a career gap, for instance.
This is a harsh strategy even in times of abundant labor, and it leaves much to be desired on the DEI front. Résumés are not power-neutral documents. There’s a lot of inherited knowledge behind writing the "ideal" keyword-optimized résumé, access to which is found along the axis of privilege.
Of course, like the résumé itself, applicant tracking systems serve a helpful role in narrowing candidate pools, which can be in the hundreds or thousands for each job posted. They work best when an expert in equity concepts regularly reviews the keywords and related coding to make sure they are free from potential bias.
So what's the outlook for résumés?
Résumés should be understood for what they are: a glimpse into a candidate’s relevant lived and professional experience. One key to using résumés effectively and inclusively is the recognition that finding the right candidate is an art rather than a precise science. This means it is important to give more space for talks with candidates who show potential based on the glimpse you have from their résumé, and less time looking for the perfect fit on paper. Not only can this boost your efficacy in times of labor shortage, but it can also lead to better hires all around.
Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?
