Section B explored a range of things that can go wrong despite the existence of EO policies and programs, as well as different ways to manage, and pre-empt the negative human factors that can compromise or fully negate workplace systems and intentions to provide EO.

Take a positive approach to eliminating gender bias and sex discrimination by determining what processes need to be introduced or tightened-up in your workplace to eliminate the negative impact of human factors during recruitment and selection.

• Beware when candidates aren’t provided with the same interview experience due to the way the interview is conducted;
• Beware the management mindset that does not extend to women workers being the norm, seeing women as women first, then workers;
• Beware when personal information or “guilty knowledge” is shared, facilitating either advantage or disadvantage for some candidates depending on the interviewers’ biases;
• Beware a department’s culture, reputation or image that is less welcoming or less supportive of women;
• Be careful when some people interpret merit as “the person I like best”;
• Raise awareness when personal relationships or social connections between interviewer and candidates can negate an objective process;
• Be aware that personal and sensitive information, accessed via company records or second-hand, can trigger personal bias resulting in discriminatory assessment and a breach of privacy laws;
• Do not assume that a grasp of basic EO principles is sufficient to eradicate interviewer bias and stereotypical views, or to offset the result of past discrimination suffered by women candidates;
• Personality traits that appeal and the development of a rapport between those who are similar or like minded are factored into the assessment process providing leverage for some candidates;
• The age of a candidate is discussed and the stereotypical assumptions relating to age and gender influence decision making;
• Written references are taken at face value, despite the fact that they can be highly subjective;
• Skill and experience discussed by the referee is not related to the job criteria, or an assessment is made by the referee despite limited knowledge about the job;
• Traditional or personal networks lend weight to the value or impact of the referee report;
• Interviewers ask referees different questions and explore different issues when verbal references are undertaken;
• The information provided by the referee is appealing to the interviewer, due to personal interests and experiences;
• The automatic assumption that the referee operates in a manner that is gender inclusive as well as receptive to the complexities of the breadth and depth of gender discrimination is highly dangerous.

Go to Section D
or
Back to EM1 Solution Home