- Bias in personnel selection is widespread (EOS Science)
People from non-Western backgrounds have to apply for jobs 50% more often to be invited for an interview. Older candidates are 40% less likely to receive a positive response from employers. This is according to research by labour economist Louis Lippens (Ghent University), as reported by EOS.
The problem extends beyond ethnic discrimination and ageism alone. Selection tools often unintentionally promote discrimination, for example through cognitive tests in which language is a determining factor. Smaller organisations are more likely to discriminate due to a lack of standardised selection procedures. AI systems such as ChatGPT also exhibit racist and sexist biases, for example when screening CVs, with candidates with non-Flemish names receiving 14 to 19 per cent fewer positive responses.
Discrimination wastes talent and harms both individuals and organisations. Job seekers who are systematically discriminated against run the risk of ending up in long-term unemployment, while companies undermine their diversity potential. The structural labour shortage caused by an ageing population could lead to less discrimination, but experts emphasise that objective selection procedures are already necessary. Or, as Professor of Applied Cognitive Psychology Stijn Schelfhout (Ghent University) says: 'It is important that you can be sure that everything is fair in a selection procedure. Whether you get the job or not is less important.'
- Screening applicants often amounts to amateur psychology (Eos Psyche&Brein)
Companies and government organisations often use personality tests to recruit staff, but many of these tests are worthless. They are not based on scientific research and have no predictive value as to how good a candidate would be for the job or for the team.
These are popular typologies such as the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), DiSC or Insights Discovery. The first is based on the personality model of psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung and distinguishes personality types such as the entertainer or the defender. The latter two categorise people into colours that are supposed to reflect their personality.
The tools used are usually not well researched and substantiated, and sometimes even complete nonsense, according to psychologists and other experts in EosPsyche&Brein. “Screening applicants often amounts to amateur psychology,” says Bart Wille (Ghent University). 'There seems to be no cure for the rock-solid belief in these nonsense methods,' says Helga Peeters (Hogeschool West-Vlaanderen). However, the use of pseudo-scientific selection tools has harmful consequences. People are rejected because they are red and not green, a commander and not a mediator. Even though that makes no sense. This is bad for the applicant who gets rejected, but also for the company, which may not be recruiting the best candidate and suffers reputational damage.
