“We want the best talents – regardless of gender, background or age.” Such statements are frequently found in employer branding and HR communications. And, in our view, there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the corporate philosophy behind them.
However, many selection processes are vulnerable to bias – unconscious distortions that systematically influence decisions. This applies not only to interviews, but also to observations in Assessment or Development Centres and even to the interpretation of psychometric test results.
What bias can lead to:
– Similarity bias: People who resemble us appear more competent.
– Gender bias: Women’s leadership potential is often assessed more critically.
– Halo effect: A strong first impression overshadows everything that follows.
– Confirmation bias: We unconsciously seek information that confirms our prior assumptions.
Research shows that such biases significantly reduce the validity of selection decisions (e.g. Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
What helps to mitigate bias? Three evidence-based measures:
- Structured interviews and assessments
Identical questions, clear criteria and evaluation based on defined rating scales
(see Campion, Palmer & Campion, 1997) - Multi-method assessment
Combining behavioural simulations, psychometric testing and structured interviews
(see Schuler & Höft, 2007; Lievens, 2017) - Trained evaluation personnel and structured calibration
Training in bias awareness and sound evaluation logic
(see König et al., 2010)
The conclusion?
Fairness is not merely a matter of intent. It is the outcome of diagnostic excellence – and of structures designed to actively prevent bias.
Our recommendation to HR responsables: Do not rely on processes that merely feel fair. Design selection procedures that are structurally fair.
