Achieving workforce diversity continues to be an elusive goal of Corporate America. Finding qualified, diverse talent and warding off claims of reverse discrimination are two of the most cited challenges that plague hiring officials. The result of poor selection processes has been catastrophic for women and people of color, as well as other underrepresented groups. According to U.S. Census data, these groups generally see higher unemployment rates and lower wages than their male and white counterparts with the same level of education.
These challenges can be overcome, but making changes will require a more sophisticated understanding of the benefits of workforce diversity. Specifically, HR departments and hiring professionals need to better define what it means to be “qualified.”
At a very basic level, hiring managers need to be realistic and clear about the requirements of their positions. A few examples can help highlight the common practices and dilemma that a poorly examined process poses to diversity. When citing a job qualification such as “must be able to lift 30 lbs.,” one must be explicit and honest. Does having the ability to lift 50 lbs. make a candidate more qualified for a position than a candidate who can lift only 35 lbs.? What if the employee will never be required to lift more than 30 lbs.? Is the ability to speak three languages more qualifying than the ability to speak the two that are listed as required? Doesn’t it depend on how likely an employee will need to speak three languages? The point is that more is not better if those additional skills won’t be used on the job. But the reality is that we often hire for “more is better,” exclude underrepresented groups, and perpetuate sameness.
Beyond those basic types of requirements that we need to think more about, there are whole clusters of skills and competencies that separate high performers from average performers that aren’t assessed in a meaningful way in most interviews. Resilience, determination, political savvy, flexibility, influence, independence, empathy, and self-awareness are discussed at a cursory level—if at all—as candidates pass through the hiring process.
To bring in higher-quality hires, and, at the same time, move the needle on organizational diversity, we must ask different questions to get a better gauge of a candidate’s skills and competencies in these areas. For example, workplace overload is a serious and growing problem in many organizations, so rather than asking the candidate if they manage stress well, ask them to tell you about specific instances where they felt overloaded and how they responded. To understand how determined the candidate is, ask them about a time they succeeded when all the odds were against them. Regardless of their background, ask the candidate what separates them most from the people around them.
The point is, don’t ask them what they would do, ask them what they have done—and why. When they share details that demonstrate the attributes I mentioned earlier—such as resilience, determination, and others—they are providing evidence that they are capable of performing better than others. Companies post their corporate values but do little to assess whether a candidate’s demonstrated values are aligned with those corporate values. We routinely evaluate candidates on technical skills they have already demonstrated. Wouldn’t it be feasible to do the same regarding these professional skills they will need to achieve long-term success in your organization?
Approaching hiring this way has three distinct advantages:
You hire the most qualified person for the job.
Managing multiple priorities with little direction, dealing with rejection, and overcoming the stress associated with overload and unrealistic timelines are going to matter as much as, or more than, technical abilities. Yet, these skills and competencies take a back seat in the selection process. Is someone with great technical skills, but who struggles with these professional skills, really qualified?
You likely increase your workforce diversity.
A huge benefit to rethinking what qualified means is that, by broadening the definition of the attributes that makes someone qualified, you are likely to increase your workforce diversity organically, rather than as a targeted strategy that angers and alienates some people. First-generation college students, people returning to the workforce after raising kids, people who have experienced and rebounded from trauma, and people who chose a different life-path than others from challenged backgrounds have creativity, determination, and problem-solving in abundance. Certainly, they must meet at least the minimum technical requirements of the job to which they are applying, but some people are being left out today because others—who may not have the necessary professional qualifications—are being selected ahead of them if they have marginally better technical skills.
You avoid claims of reverse discrimination.
If minimum technical requirements are met but the focus is on a broader definition of qualifications as opposed to how people look or what group they belong to, one can’t be accused of lowering standards just to hire diverse candidates. Moreover, the diverse candidate may not always be the most qualified under this broad new definition. Would an African-American born with a silver spoon in his mouth be a more qualified candidate than a white male raised in poverty? Would a woman whose mother is a corporate executive be a better candidate than a male whose parents are unemployed? We can’t know until we ask the right questions and discover how their life experiences have prepared them to demonstrate the skills and competencies that are important for a specific position or company.
Organizations say the right things about why diversity is important, including bringing more creativity, greater innovation, and better problem-solving to the table as a result of having unique perspectives on teams. Current selection processes, however, do not validate that they are truly bringing in these perspectives when they hire diverse candidates. Without this validation, one can hire a woman whose worldview is more closely aligned with males, or an African-American whose worldview has little in common with other African-Americans. Conversely, maybe a male candidate or white candidate with unique life experiences ends up emerging from the selection process as the most qualified candidate.
A change that must be made.
If HR professionals and hiring officials are going to make the kind of significant impact in diversity efforts they hope to achieve, they will have to think more deeply about selection criteria. Hiring people with great technical skills is only part of the equation. To be qualified for today’s complex, stressful, and demanding workplaces, a broader selection of individuals need to be included in the conversation from the beginning.
