gender bias Archives - Job Interview Coaching

November 20, 2024November 20, 2024

Navigating Inappropriate Job Interview Questions: A Practical Guide for Women

The recruitment process is found to be unfair to women who are viewed as being at an age where they are likely to become pregnant therefore needing to take maternity leave.

Across industries and around the world, interviewers often ask inappropriate, sometimes illegal, questions that hint at concerns about parental status, future family plans, or caregiving responsibilities.

Although it’s illegal to discriminate based on parental status in many countries, questions that aim to gather such information still emerge, often indirectly throughout the recruitment process.

Knowing how to respond to inappropriate parental (job interview) questions can help candidates protect their job prospects and, ultimately, contribute to reducing discriminatory practices in hiring.

In recent research, ‘How to respond to inappropriate questions in job interviews: Personal and social consequences of truth-telling, deflection and confrontation’ solutions to this common bias have been looked into.

Why do hiring managers ask questions about pregnancy?

Employment discrimination against women based on their potential for motherhood stems from deep-seated cultural biases and stereotypes.

Research shows that assumptions about women’s roles and availability can impact perceptions of their commitment, “fit,” and dedication to a job.

Often, women are expected to prioritize family responsibilities over work, a stereotype that rarely affects men in the same way even though many males now take paternity leave for long periods of time.

The belief feeds into a cycle where women may be asked inappropriate questions during the job interview, putting female applicants in the position of either awkwardly disclosing personal information or having to find a way to sidestep the question.

This scenario places women at a crossroads where they must carefully weigh how to respond, balancing their desire for authenticity with a pragmatic approach that supports their chances of being hired.

Conflict Management Strategies for Dealing with Illegal Job Interview Questions

Kahalon, R., Ullrich, J. and Becker, J.C. (2024) ‘How to respond to inappropriate questions in job interviews: Personal and social consequences of truth-telling, deflection and confrontation’, European Journal of Social Psychology research paper found three conflict management strategies that can be used to deal with inappropriate parental status interview questions.

The results from three experiments that attributed to the research suggest that ‘deflection’ (i.e., responding with another question) is the superior strategy when asked questions about future family planning as the strategy increases the chance of being hired compared to applicants who opt for truth telling (which can play into the employers biases).

Another option is ‘confrontation’ (i.e., saying that the question is inappropriate). The confrontation method was found to be superior in terms of a social level and leads to a decrease the probability that the same interviewer will asked similar questions to women in future interviews but is highly unlikely to result in a job offer for the candidate confronting the employer.

The 3 common strategies to approach the illegal interview question:

The Strategy of Truthful Disclosure

The first strategy is to answer the interviewer’s question honestly, even if it touches on sensitive topics.

For example, if asked about family plans, one might say, “Yes, I do plan on having children in the future,” or “I currently have two young children.”

Pros of Truthful Disclosure

Authenticity: This approach demonstrates openness and honesty, qualities that can sometimes foster trust.
Avoids Risk of Misinterpretation: With a direct answer, there’s no ambiguity, and interviewers cannot misinterpret your words.
Strengthens Personal Confidence: Answering directly can feel empowering, especially for those who value transparency.

Cons of Truthful Disclosure

Reduced Hiring Chances: Disclosing parental status or plans can sometimes play into biases, leading interviewers to view you as less committed to the job.
Reinforces Biases: By answering these questions, you inadvertently accept them as valid, which can perpetuate the belief that parental status is a legitimate consideration in hiring.

When to Use Truthful Disclosure

Truthful disclosure can be an appropriate response if:

You believe that the company genuinely supports work-life balance and doesn’t penalize employees for family commitments.
You feel comfortable sharing and believe your response will not affect your hiring chances.

Example Response: “Yes, I do have children, but I have a strong support system that allows me to be fully committed to my role.”

Practical Tip: Reframe the Disclosure

If you choose to disclose, use it as a segue to emphasize your strengths. For instance, mentioning a support system or flexibility plan demonstrates your commitment to managing both professional and personal responsibilities.

Confrontation as a Strategy for Social Change

Confronting the interviewer about the inappropriateness of the interview question is a more direct strategy that can go either way.

The direct approach challenges the interviewer and brings attention to the issue, signalling that inappropriate questions are not acceptable – sometimes the hiring manager isn’t aware of the appropriateness of the questions until their attention is drawn to it.

For example, if asked about your plans to start a family, you might respond, “I’m not sure how that’s relevant to my ability to perform in this role.”

Pros of Confrontation

Sets Boundaries: Directly addressing inappropriate questions helps set professional boundaries and demonstrates self-advocacy.
Promotes Social Change: Confrontation can have a ripple effect, discouraging interviewers from asking similar questions in the future.
Establishes Respect: This approach can also communicate that you are confident and unwilling to accept discrimination.

Cons of Confrontation

Perceived as Aggressive: Confrontation can sometimes be perceived as combative, especially for women, who may face backlash for challenging authority.
Risk of Not Being Hired: By directly opposing the interviewer, you might reduce your chances of securing the position.

When to Use Confrontation

Confrontation is ideal if:

You value setting a strong precedent against discrimination.
You’re willing to take a risk for the potential reward of encouraging more equitable practices.

Example Response: “I think questions about family status are generally unrelated to my professional abilities and commitment. I’m happy to discuss my relevant skills and experiences for this role.”

Practical Tip: Use a Neutral Tone

When confronting, aim to maintain a neutral tone to reduce the likelihood of being perceived as overly defensive. This can help frame your response as an assertion rather than an accusation.

Deflection: A Polite and Practical Response

Deflection is an indirect way of responding by sidestepping the question without providing a direct answer.

This strategy, which was found to be best approach in terms of becoming hired, can help avoid disclosing unnecessary personal information while keeping the conversation professional.

For example, if asked about family planning, you could respond with, “I’m curious, do many team members make use of the daycare facility you mentioned?”

Pros of Deflection

Protects Privacy: Deflection allows you to keep personal matters private without seeming evasive.
Maintains Likability: By using a neutral question, you keep the tone positive and professional, which can boost your appeal as a candidate.
Reduces Hiring Risk: This strategy is effective for protecting hiring chances, as it sidesteps the potential biases triggered by direct answers.

Cons of Deflection

Doesn’t Challenge the Bias: By deflecting, you avoid addressing the interviewer’s potentially discriminatory motive, which may not deter them from asking similar questions in the future.
Can Feel Evasive: Some interviewers might sense that you’re not answering directly, which could prompt additional probing.

When to Use Deflection

Deflection is especially useful if:

You want to keep the conversation professional without addressing the question directly.
You feel the interviewer may not take well to confrontation but want to avoid disclosing personal information.

Example Response: “I’m interested in hearing more about the company culture and how it supports work-life balance for all employees.”

Practical Tip: Shift the Focus

Try shifting the focus back to your professional qualities. Deflection can include redirection to emphasize your interest in the company’s culture, expectations, or support systems, keeping the interview on track.

Weighing the Cost-Benefit of Each Strategy

Each response strategy—truthful disclosure, confrontation, and deflection—vary in terms of their implications, and choosing the right approach depends on both the situation and your personal preferences.

Summary of the 3 strategies:

Strategy	Benefits	Drawbacks
Truthful Disclosure	Builds trust, feels authentic	Risk of reinforcing bias, reduced hiring chances
Confrontation	Sets boundaries, promotes social change	Can reduce likability, may harm hiring chances
Deflection	Protects privacy, maintains likability	Doesn’t challenge bias, might seem evasive

Additional Tips for Navigating Inappropriate Questions

Prepare Responses in Advance: Anticipating questions and practicing responses can make an applicant feel more confident and prepared. Consider rehearsing responses that both deflect and redirect the conversation.
Highlight Your Skills and Commitment: Redirecting to your professional abilities or relevant experience can subtly remind interviewers that your suitability for the role doesn’t hinge on your family status.
Be Aware of Legal Rights: Understand the laws in your region regarding interview questions. If a question directly violates your rights, you may wish to address it accordingly or, in some cases, consider reporting it.
Assess Company Culture: When you encounter inappropriate questions, consider it as a potential red flag regarding the company culture. If these questions feel invasive or suggest a lack of support for work-life balance, it may signal broader issues within the organization.
Trust Your Instincts: If an interviewer’s questions make you uncomfortable or seem inappropriate, remember that your response is ultimately for your benefit. You deserve to find a workplace that values your contributions, not your personal life.

Moving Forward: Balancing Personal and Social Impact

Balancing personal goals with a desire for broader change can be challenging, especially in job interviews.

Deflection remains a popular choice for its practicality, but if your long-term goal is to advocate for more inclusive workplaces, you may decide to occasionally confront inappropriate questions as well. Each response holds the potential to inform hiring practices and can, over time, contribute to changing the narrative about women in the workforce.

Remember that regardless of your response, simply being prepared and confident can make a significant difference. By thoughtfully navigating inappropriate questions, you can better protect your career prospects, challenge biases when possible, and work toward creating a more equitable workplace for everyone.

Source:

Kahalon, R., Ullrich, J. and Becker, J.C. (2024) ‘How to respond to inappropriate questions in job interviews: Personal and social consequences of truth?telling, deflection and confrontation’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(4), pp. doi:10.1002/ejsp.3062.

August 2, 2023August 16, 2023

Unveiling the Hidden Bias in Job Interviews: A Quest for Fairness and Diversity

Job interviews serve as critical gateways to employment opportunities, helping employers assess the skills and qualifications of potential candidates, while at the same time, allowing job applicants to showcase their suitability for the advertised job position.

However, beneath the seemingly objective facade of a fair interview lies the lurking shadow of bias, which can significantly impact hiring decisions.

Unconscious biases, stemming from preconceived notions and stereotypes, may inadvertently influence interviewers’ scores given to each job applicant.

This subconscious manipulation of interview data can often lead to the most suitable interviewee not being offered the role. This is because, the brain, to save time and energy, doesn’t allocate the same level of attention to each decision.

Understanding biases, how there are formed, and the various types of unconscious biases, can help foster a more inclusive and diverse workforce, who possess the required skills, qualities, and experiences required for a competitive organisation.

Understanding Bias in Job Interviews

Much research has shown how a structured job interview, the asking of predetermined interview questions to all candidates, with answers being assessed against a scoring criteria, is the best way to predict the job performance of each job applicant.

The flaw in the system is humans’ natural shortcut to decision-making, using generalisations, stereotypes, and beliefs based on previous experiences, which we call unconscious bias.

Bias refers to the inclination or prejudice towards specific individuals or groups, often stemming from implicit assumptions or stereotypes rather than objective judgment.

In a job interview, biases can arise from a myriad of factors, such as gender, race, ethnicity, age, appearance, and even the candidate’s surname. Other influencers include subtle aspects like accents, mannerisms, the interviewee’s choice of outfit, their perceived attractiveness (what is beautiful is good bias), or their confidence level.

Biases can lead to unfair treatment, discriminatory practices, and the exclusion of qualified candidates from job opportunities. This not only hampers individual career growth but also perpetuates inequalities in the workplace.

The average cost of a bad hire is up to 30% of the employee’s first-year earnings.
Source: Apollo Technical

Different Forms of Bias in Job Interviews

Halo and Horn Effect

The halo effect occurs when one positive attribute or impression about a candidate influences the interviewer’s perception of their other qualities.

Conversely, the horn effect works oppositely, wherein one negative attribute overshadows the candidate’s positive traits.

An example of the halo effect is when a job applicant has recorded the name of a prestigious university they attended on an application form. The interviewers short cut is ‘name of the prestigious university = intelligence’

This bias could be true, the candidate who attended a well-known higher education establishment may well have gained high grades, but without further inquiry, the truth could be much different:

the applicant may have failed the exams
the qualification is in an unrelated industry
the student may have only just passed the qualification

A late interviewee could be affected by the ‘horns effect’. Being late for an interview is seen as a huge negative: ‘if you can’t turn up on time for an interview, then you are likely to be late once employed’.

Is a late applicant always a bad worker? What if the lateness was caused by an unlikely situation, like a crash on the motorway which resulted in the police closing down the motorway, does the ‘lateness equals a poor worker’ still apply?

Similarity Bias

The likability factor of a candidate increases if an interviewer finds a similarity between themselves and the applicant.

Similarity bias is common as humans create ‘in and out’ groups, and those that are in are in because they possess a similarity to the interviewer.

Humans are highly motivated to see themselves and those who are similar in a favorable light.
Source: neuroleadership

Interviewers may favor candidates who share similar backgrounds and experiences, inadvertently sidelining candidates from diverse backgrounds.

Similarities can include:

Sense of humor
Similar in appearance
Thought processes/belief systems
Cultural
Hobbies and interest

When it comes to the similar-to-me effect, this prototype is often our perception of ourselves. For example, if you wear glasses and believe that you are intelligent, when you see someone wearing glasses, you will think that they seem intelligent.
Source: the decision lab

Confirmation Bias

Once an opinion has been made, it is hard for that person to change their outlook.

Interviewers with a strong belief ‘this person doesn’t seem suitable for the role’ will, according to confirmation bias, seek information that confirms their preconceived notions about candidates’ abilities, rather than making an objective evaluation from their interview answers.

Confirmation bias in a job interview can be positive or negative, depending on the employer’s initial appraisal of the candidate which includes information from the Halo or Horns effect, similarity bias, and stereotypes.

Philosophers note that people have difficulty processing information in a rational, unbiased manner once they have developed an opinion about an issue
Source: britannica

Unconscious Stereotypes

Stereotypes, deeply ingrained in societal norms, can seep into the interviewer’s judgment, affecting the assessment of candidates from different demographic groups.

As an example, careers can be gender biased. The unconscious stereotype is ‘men or women are better suited to a particular job role’.

There is a general consensus in managerial and sociological research that certain occupations are gendered. For example, public relations, nursing, and teaching are considered “female-gendered” occupations, whereas stock trading, engineering, and construction are considered “male-gendered” occupations.
Gender and the Economy

Even when an interviewer doesn’t truly believe the stereotype, the ingrained belief system has a subconscious influence on the employer’s decision-making process.

As mentioned previously, the structured job interview, the set of predetermined interview questions that are scored against set criteria, is easily influenced.

It’s common for the scoring process to be on a scale, let’s say a scale of 1-4, with points being the highest scoring answer, the answer that meets the job criteria in full.

Biases and stereotypes can influence the allocated score. If two applicants, one male, and one female, apply for a perceived masculine or feminine job role, the interviewer is likely to score the same answer one point higher or lower than the applicant with the opposite gender.

As the three highest-scoring interviews only have one or two points between them, being scored higher or lower for even one interview answer can be a deciding factor in who is offered the vacant position.

Mitigating Bias in Job Interviews

Many organisations are working hard to overcome the recruitment bias problem. Initially, human resource teams undertook mandatory unconscious bias training, which didn’t have a positive effect

The evidence against unconscious bias training is mounting. One recent meta-analysis of over 490 studies found that whilst training might raise awareness in a couple of weeks following, it did not lead to long-lasting behavioural change.
Fair HQ

Other research shows that voluntary attendance at unconscious bias training had a better outcome.

Instead, employers reflected on their interview processes and found ways to remove potential bais from the recruitment system.

Standardize the Interview Process

As previously discussed, the most common form of the interview process is the structured interview format with a set of predetermined questions, ensuring that all candidates are evaluated based on the same criteria.

Previous to this, and still used in many organizations, is the ‘informal’ job interview. Asking ad-hoc questions to ‘get to know’ the applicant, and their values, behaviors, and temperament.

Much research has concluded that the most accurate way to predict the performance of potential employees is via the structured job interview.

Blind Application

Conduct “blind” interviews by removing identifying information like names, gender, and educational institutions from job application forms.

The ‘blind’ application removes the halo and horns effect that could be created from the name of a university, the applicant’s age, or any commonality with the interviewer.

Having a ‘blind’ application allows the interview panel to focus solely on candidates’ qualifications, experiences, and qualities for the advertised job role.

In some companies, the person interviewing the applicant is different from the staff member who read and approved the job application forms.

Diverse Interview Panels

Form diverse interview panels to bring a range of perspectives and reduce the influence of individual biases.

In large organizations, it’s common to have three or four interview rounds, where similar questions are asked by different interviewers. The interview answers, from all the interview rounds, are then analyzed and reviewed.

Interview Times

The timing of the interview influences the interview outcome. Interviewers are tired at the end of a long day of interviewing or commonly feel more drained after dinner. To overcome the time problem, interviewers can interview just two applicants a day over a 5 day period instead of squeezing 10 interviews into one day of interviewing.

Another helpful solution is interviewing practice. Many interviewers are untrained and nervous. The first interviewee is affected by this, as the interview panel is less familiar with the interview questions at the start of a day of interviewing.

The number of follow-up questions, or their natural process for scoring the applicants, differs from the first to the last interview. Being able to practice asking structured job interview questions helps improve confidence through familiarity.

Periodically review and update interview practices, aligning them with the organization’s diversity and inclusion goals.

Recognizing and confronting bias in job interviews is crucial to building an inclusive and diverse workforce.

By understanding the different forms of bias, implementing strategies to mitigate its influence, and redefining the hiring process, organizations can pave the way for fairer, more equitable hiring practices.

Embracing diversity not only enriches the workplace but also fosters innovation, creativity, and ultimately, success for businesses in the ever-evolving global landscape.

September 5, 2014December 5, 2020

Women in Engineering Forlorn hopes and barriers beneath

Today’s guest post is by Pratish Amin a professional writer who is been writing content on Career, job markets and Education Sector.

Once in a while, we read articles, stories and news about female achievers, in the areas of entrepreneurship, sports, politics, etc., but it is only once in a while, not quite often. Things like these are even harder to come across, especially when it comes to Engineering and Technology. Is it just us thinking that in India, there is a huge lack of women’s participation in the areas of E&T?

“No” says reports.

India has scored the lowest rank in terms of female participation, as per a report from Elsevier, when it comes to workforce access, knowledge economy and, among many other facets, Engineering. Several reasons are put forth as the reasons for the lack of active female participation in these areas, but almost all such studies have a few things in common such as the selection procedures of engineering institutes, in-college environment and cultural attitude spread across the country.

Engineering Selection Procedures

According to a study by “Aspiring Minds”, the selection procedure in effect among engineering universities and colleges of India contributes the most in shattering the engineering dreams of many Indian women.

The selection processes followed across the nation by engineering colleges mainly comprises of either self-regulated cut off marks or individual admission methods that are discreet and are involuntarily avoiding female participation in engineering courses. These procedures are believed to lack testing an individual’s interests, skills and confidence of the candidates, which should have been the deciding factors of a successful engineering career.

So, what can be possibly done to reverse this situation and allow more aspiring female engineers to enroll in these colleges?

A revamped selection procedure where all the above-mentioned parameters such as interests and talents are thoroughly scrutinized could impart a huge change in the engineering education system of India. A huge increase in the number of female engineers can be witnessed and also in India’s engineering achievements, the economical contribution of women, etc.

Though it all lies in the hands of the Governing bodies and the concerned authorities who draw policies for Engineering colleges, self-interest and toughened competition from female candidates too can change this situation to a considerable level.

In-College Environment

In all the reports about Indian women’s participation in the engineering field, the course of study shifts directly to the next possible barrier – the classroom environment. A surprising result was yielded every time as the result of in-class environment studies, making this one of the most interesting reason discussed in these studies.

The classroom environment of engineering colleges is proven to grow more confidence among female engineering students than male students or female students of any other courses. When asked about gender equality and ease of getting along, they say that they feel confident in their classroom setting as their intelligence, interest and skills get well recognized by their faculty.

Moreover, the percentage of male engineering students who feel isolated in their classrooms was higher than the female’s, as per the result of a study conducted among around 5000students. And when it comes to respect, both male and female engineers feel that they receive proper respect from their peers in every manner.

It seems that the classroom environment in institutes is indeed an added advantage than a barrier for female students in pursuing engineering courses.

Cultural Attitude

Right from ancient times, societies in India, end-to-end, are dominated by males and hence, female contribution towards developing a society was being very low to none. Even in this modern-day, where voices of gender equality are heard from all the parts of the world, active female contribution in the Indian societies are unbelievably lower than many other developed and developing countries.

A recent study indicates that the percentage of female parliament members as well as the percentage of Indian families that have a woman as their major income source is way less than 10%. This was after a one-third increase in the overall female contribution to their society from the year 2001 to 2011. The only possible way to change this situation is to make resources easily accessible to female entrepreneurs and let them take part actively in the nation’s workforce.

Increasing the number of female students in Engineering colleges could be believed to increase female contribution to a society to considerable levels. This could also lead to an increase in the number of female workforce across industries, consequently leading to an increased number of families having women as their major source of income.

Some Soothing facts

The study by “Aspiring Minds” indicates that the education system of India, especially engineering does not have the “chilly” climate as the western countries do. Also, the study shows a steady increase in the confidence level of aspiring female engineers who prepare for entrance exams like CAT & IITJEE. Results of such engineering entrance examinations are showing that women are slowly moving to the top in scores and the numbers of female candidates enrolling to engineering colleges are in the rise.

Also, while the percentage of female students studying life sciences, medicines and biology are increasing in a fast pace, the percentage of female students opting for engineering courses is stumbling around 32%. But, this rate is considerably higher when compared to UK and other countries where several studies about gender parity in engineering education were conducted.

It has been witnessed that women who enter into any field are quite confident about their ability to work and bring out the best.
The same goes in the engineering field where they find themselves more confident and motivated. However, there are certain things that make female engineers fall behind men engineers, especially in terms of environmental aspect, feeling respected and academic settings.

The Point?

Though the selection process and social attitude about women were the only visible barriers in making their engineering dreams come true, the recent increase in the number of female engineering students, their confidence level in the classroom setting, feeling of being respected by their peers and other such factors show that many women have succeeded in crossing these barriers.

Self-confidence and hard work are all needed for any woman to achieve her engineering degree. If you were waiting for things to change before you take a step towards your engineering education, this is time you step in and change things up on your own!

Author bio:

Pratish Amin is a professional writer who is been writing content on Career, job markets and Education Sector.