Department of Animal and Plant Sciences Recruitment Pack For recruitment of postdoctoral associates and academic staff

Athena SWAN action committee 3/18/2015

his recruitment pack for appointment of postdoctoral research associations and academic staff is provided by the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences Athena SWAN action Tcommittee. Information in the pack is based on the Valuing Talent event in APS in which staff were trained as chairs of recruitment panels and presented information about implicit bias.

The pack contains 3 documents and an appendix to serve as aide memoires for panel chairs and as guidance for de-biasing the recruitment process. It should be used throughout the recruitment cycle to provide support to the panel.

Contents

1. Role and Responsibilities of the Panel Chair

2. De-biasing questions to consider during the application evaluation stage

3. De-biasing questions to consider during the interview stage

Appendix: “Making it Stick” personal statement ideas

A message from the HoD:

The Athena Swan process has made us think more carefully about our values, about how we express them and act on them, and about how we make sure we are doing what we believe we are doing. Acknowledging that we frequently have to make time-pressured decisions because of the many demands of our jobs, this recruitment pack aims to support and guide colleagues as they are engaging with the recruitment process. I know that all the staff in APS want to see our department recruit and support a diverse community of excellent colleagues. Please use this excellent resource when recruiting - it will make our procedures transparent, shared, and better informed.

Best regards,

Mike Siva-Jothy Role and Responsibilities of the Panel Chair

As lead representative of the University of Sheffield on the interview panel your role is to ensure that:

• fair and equitable practice is positively promoted and occurs throughout all selection action

• the selection action is conducted with integrity and any inappropriate behaviour is challenged

• recruitment quality standards are met for every recommended appointment

• to ensure that the panel acts in accordance with relevant University policies and practices

• to ensure sound decisions are made in the selection of candidates

• to have final decision-making authority where the selection panel is divided

Decision making

• Chair must maintain objective, measured lead

• Involve all members of the panel

• Consider all elements of the selection action

• Maintain focus on professional not personal

• Link all decision-making back to criteria for the post

• Agree feedback for unsuccessful candidates

Also keep in mind whether members of the recruitment committee have been trained about implicit bias and be mindful of the possible impact of implicit bias influencing recruitment decisions.

Further information relating to recruitment and selection can be found on the HR web pages

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment

This section of the web pages focuses on four key areas of recruitment, as follows:

Section Web link Key information includes: Defining the Job http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment/dtj About the Job and advert templates; How to grade a role Recruiting with http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment/rwi Recruitment posters; Impact Tips on using social media; Other resources to include potential applicants to Sheffield and the University Selection Action http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment/sa Chair Recruitment and Selection training; Long listing; Forms of assessment; Making the decision Making the http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/recruitment/mta Salary decisions; Appointment Pre employment checks; Academic Probation; Induction De-biasing questions during Application Evaluation

Ask Yes No Ration Action ale Are the short listing criteria We Scrutinise the criteria and establish the link to based entirely on role may performance. Ask yourself if the criteria contain requirements? Have you used use items which arose from a small number previous the online recruitment tools to short good or bad experiences and if that might be write notes on candidates? listing restricting the type of people given criteria consideration. which have little or no relevan ce to the reality of choosi ng the best candid ate. For exampl e we may have criteria which are purely admini strative such as geogra phical locatio n or own institut ion prefere nces. Is the short listing criteria If we We may think we all have the same view but written down, objective and allow checking that is the case is important: write it unambiguous? Is this the same staff to down and circulate it. Check people have a for all candidates? make sound shared understanding of the meaning of person the criteria. al judgme nts they may well use differe nt criteria . In additio n, if criteria are ambigu ous (and one of these may be their ‘potent ial’ or ‘capaci ty to benefit and develo p’) we tend to fall back onto our implici t or intuitiv e process ing. Does the criteria use language Particu Challenge yourself on what exactly is needed that is overly task focussed or larly and try to maintain a balance between the task overly people focused? action and people focused descriptions. Order the or criteria to mix up the two to avoid primacy and people recency affects. focuse d criteria can lead us to select men or women who we tend to more strongl y associa te with one or the other type of criteria Do those commenting upon or We Train them! evaluating applications know have a about implicit bias and how it bias may affect decisions? blind spot; we can see it in others but not in ourselv es. We may think we are excludi ng irrelev ant inform ation such as names, address es etc. but our uncons cious will process them and may have positiv e or negativ e associa tions Do those commenting upon or Being Try to strip off all irrelevant information, but evaluating applications do so unduly don’t get too politically correct as some personal without sight of the comments influen information may help the decision. Be rigorous or evaluations of other staff? ced by as to why you need to see any piece of those information at this sifting stage. who have gone before us is a risk, especia lly if staff can see the views of more senior staff. Were any dissenting opinions The Take time to explore the dissenting opinion with or evaluations properly risk of an open mind. explored before being group discounted? decisio ns is that we can ignore or steam- roller that one dissent ing voice who may have hit upon a flaw or strengt h of an applica nt. Have we made sure that Exclud Try to sift without names and other information applicants known to staff are ing which could identify the candidate where evaluated the same as those prior possible. If necessary hold the opinions of those who are unknown? knowle who know them back until others have given an dge is opinion. Ultimately some staff might prefer to difficul step back from decision making if their t but as relationship with the applicants is very close or far as strong. possibl e we should try to mitigat e the impact of prior knowle dge if we don’t have it about everyo ne. Even if we do have prior knowle dge of all of the applica nts we still need to be mindfu l that these opinio ns are formed based partly at least on the way we have process ed prior inform ation and experie nce which will tend to favour people who are like us. How long have you given Prior Eat! If you are rushed or tired but still have to yourself and others to evaluate emotio carry out the selection try to assess the less usual applications? Are you stressed nal or or more ambiguous applicants while you are less or overloaded during cogniti tired or hungry. application review? ve load can deplete our mental resourc es, allowin g “easy” decisio ns, that match our biases to made more readily . De-biasing questions during the Interview Stage

Ask Yes No Ration Action ale Have interviewers arrived Prior Eat! If you are rushed or tired but still have to refreshed, fed and with plenty emotio carry out the selection try to assess the less usual of time to carry out the nal or or more ambiguous applicants while you are less selection? cogniti tired or hungry. ve load can deplete our resourc es On arrival do applicants see a Feeling Create an opportunity for applicants to see a diverse range of people? that we diverse range of students/staff. Be clear that can these people are or are not also assessing the ‘fit’ is applicant to reduce anxiety on both sides. a key method to mitigat e stereot ype threat and researc h shows people perfor m better when the selecti on panel look like them. Have we made sure that the Feeling Source people who look like the applicant to interview panel is not that we participate in the interview or at least help dominated by people who look can administer the process or provide the welcome. the same? ‘fit’ is a key method to mitigat e stereot ype threat (ST) and researc h shows people perfor m better when the selecti on panel look like them. Conver sely, panels which do not look like the applica nt can trigger ST. Have we made sure that Startin Consider allowing extra time for non-Native sufficient time is giving for the g an English speakers so that the interview panel can interview to candidates whose intervi first accommodate themselves to any accent, first language is not English? ew differences in cadence, etc. with someo ne whose first langua ge is not Englis h can allow uncons cious bias to influen ce our decisio n. Are the interview selection Ambig Write them down, test them out between criteria written down, uity interviewers before the day starts. objective and unambiguous? allows bias back into the process becaus e we tend to backfil l with our default inform ation where there is ambigu ity. Have interviewers been Being Train them. trained and did that training mindfu include an input on l of the unconscious bias? possibl e impact of uncons cious bias allows us to mitigat e the effect.

Are the core questions agreed Ambig At least have the basic questions agreed and in advance and is there a clear uity work from a script. criteria or rating system? allows bias back into the process becaus e we tend to backfil l with our default inform ation where there is ambigu ity. It can becom e a self- fulfilli ng prophe cy becaus e we seek out confir ming and ignore disconf irming inform ation. Do some of the We This can be done in the welcome, the questions/interactions can introduction to the interview or even through the emphasise the confidence we mitigat questions themselves. The earlier the better. have in the applicant’s e achievements to date and the stereot fact that we expect them to ype develop in role? threat by these two simple actions . They can easily be woven into questio ns or introdu ctions. Are we sure interviewers Ambig A warm up session to test understanding will understand the criteria and uity help. A simple discussion of the meaning of the have a shared view of that allows criteria my well be enough but don’t skip this criteria? bias and assume shared understanding. back into the process becaus e we tend to backfil l with our default inform ation where there is ambigu ity. It can becom e a self- fulfilli ng prophe cy becaus e we seek out confir ming and ignore disconf irming inform ation. Are the views of all selection As we Allow people to rate independently and simply panel members (e.g. junior tend to aggregate. Equally weight ratings/opinions. If staff) given equal weight in listen you used erecruitment, this does it for you. Don’t the decision? to and pay lip service to the views of an interviewer, value they are either in and equally weighted or out. the That doesn’t stop people participating, even if opinio their opinions are not used in the final decision. ns of groups with whom we have affinity , we should expect this in decisio n making too. Thus, if we are using more junior staff on the panel we should give their views equal weight with other panel membe rs. This helps to recogni se that biases are everyw here and that ‘the diversit y of opinio n’ has often been shown to be more accurat e than experts . Were any dissenting opinions The Allow time to discuss the dissenting opinion on the final selection fully risk of with an open mind and without challenging until explored? group the person has finished outlining their decisio position/thoughts. ns is that we can ignore or steam- roller that one dissent ing voice who may have hit upon a flaw or strengt h of an applica nt. It does not mean that everyo ne gets a veto, just that we agree to listen with an open mind to objecti ons and to give them due consid eration . What feedback from others, Others Accept this feedback but think about how to not on the interview may weight this, particularly if any of the feedback is committee, have played in the not based on personal interactions, perceptions of the final decision? comple candidate as a “good fit”. tely underst and the criteria or if they do, may not have a shared view of that criteria They may not be aware of their own biases and they may not have attempt ed to mitigat e them during evaluat ion. Do we have a similar volume We Weigh them! Or at least compare them. of interview notes for all tend to Remember to use erecruitment to help in this candidates? write process. more when people are not like us. Simple volume of notes catalog uing reasons to reject should alert us. Is the balance of feedback we We Compare the feedback in terms of both content produce and give similar for tend to and the review/developmental balance. all candidates in terms of spend interview performance and more future development? time reviewi ng past shortco mings with people who are not like us, and to make the feedba ck less formati ve, more vague and less useful. We spend more time giving ideas, talking about future aspirati ons and may find ourselv es talking about ‘we’ with those who are more like us. Making it Stick

We encourage staff to do simple easy things to mitigate the effect of implicit bias on our people decisions. “Making it Stick” are statements of commitment regarding how you personally can mitigate your own biases during selection and assessment of candidates. We provide some ideas below from the open access web site, iCommit. Additional statements and ideas can be found on that website (see Get Inspiration; https://www.icommit.co.uk/inspiration.php) Remember that big changes can happen if we all do at least one small thing differently. To make our own small change happen, we have to decide when we will do it and what we will or will not do. These statements help with that process.

Ideas for personal statements of commitment during: Writing Job Descriptions

When I am next interviewing for staff (or writing out a job description), I will make sure before I start that I have a clear idea of the criteria for the role and that I challenge that criteria to ensure it is valid and not just a description of me.

When I next recruit, I will personally encourage a wider range of staff to apply, especially those who don’t look like me.

When I am writing a job description, I will slow down and take particular care if I have pictures in my head of a particular person (or myself) as I am writing.

Application evaluation

When I am reviewing CVs, I will not do that when I am tired.

When I next receive a batch of CVs, I will review them without referring to the names on the CV.

When I next recruit, I will not allow a “short sift” timeframe, from when I receive CVs to when I am expected to evaluate CVs so that I do not rush my decision.

Interviewing

When I am next interviewing for staff, I will make sure before I start that I have a clear idea of the criteria for the role and that I have a common understanding of this criteria with other interviewers.

When I am next recruiting, I will interview XX% more applicants to broaden the scope of the people I invite to interview.

When I am next interviewing, I will encourage my co-interviewers to challenge me on my deliberations and decisions and try not to get defensive about this When I am next interviewing staff, I will challenge myself to ask if I have weighed the evidence fairly

When I am thinking negative things about interview performance, I will ask myself if I would be thinking the same thing if that staff member had been a man/woman, etc.

Throughout the process

When I am making important people decisions, I will stop and ask myself if I am being a good role model in the decision and in my own behaviour

When I see or hear behaviours which I think may be driven by implicit bias or unhelpful aspects of our culture, I will challenge those behaviours