How can we make sure we have the right people in place to deliver the best possible results?

Having been in the recruitment industry now for over 25 years and solely supporting clients with their key hiring, it has been an incredibly refreshing change in focus, to now be working with clients on a much more fundamental question- “How can we make sure we have the right people in place to deliver the best possible results?

Since joining my new firm, I have had the chance to spend time interacting with so many incredible professionals working for MU, who look at this question in such a different way than I have ever been used to, and thus are also working hard to find and offer credible solutions.

I have also been very active recently in reading and researching what is going on within organisations and what others are saying on this topic. I wanted to share some thoughts and observations on what I have found.

Over the last two and half decades, I have personal witnessed the impact of biases and judgments on all organisations when they are hiring or promoting their leaders. It's clear that these factors can influence who gets hired or promoted and who doesn't, often leading to hiring/promotion decisions that are based on personal opinions, old-school networks, or working with recruiters who just take a roller-deck approach to providing potential candidates, rather than objective criteria.

However, the importance of selecting the right leaders for the right roles cannot be overstated.

As highlighted in "Leaders Eat Last," by the author Simon Sinek, different organizations require different types of leaders, and success in one context does not necessarily translate to success in another.

?Leadership assessment is a crucial component of the recruitment process, especially for organizations looking to fill executive-level positions. A strong leader can help steer a company towards success, while a poor leader can undermine the efforts of even the most talented employees. However, the process of assessing leadership potential can be fraught with biases and judgments that can lead to poor decision-making.

To address these issues, researchers have conducted numerous studies on leadership assessments and the impact of bias on these assessments.

Here are some examples:

1. Novel Approaches to Leadership Assessment: One study by Michael J. Burke and Alexandra E. Zelin, published in the Journal of Business and Psychology in 2021, compared traditional leadership assessment methods (such as interviews and personality tests) to novel methods (such as gamified assessments and virtual reality simulations). The study found that the novel methods were more effective in predicting leadership success. For example, the use of virtual reality simulations allowed candidates to demonstrate their leadership skills in a more realistic and immersive environment, which provided a more accurate measure of their potential.

2. The Impact of Bias on Leadership Assessments: Bias can impact leadership assessments in various ways, including unconscious bias, confirmation bias, and attribution bias. In an article published in the Journal of Leadership Education in 2018, Robyn G. Woollands discusses these biases and how they can influence the assessment of leadership potential. For example, unconscious biases may lead recruiters to favor candidates who share similar backgrounds or characteristics, while confirmation bias can cause them to focus on information that confirms their preconceived notions about a candidate.

3. The Role of Implicit Bias in Executive Selection: Anthony R. Pratkanis and Marlene E. Turner explore the impact of implicit bias on executive selection in a paper published in the Journal of Social Issues in 2018. Implicit biases are those that are unconscious and automatic, and can affect the judgments and decisions of even well-intentioned recruiters. The paper provides recommendations for minimizing the impact of implicit bias in executive selection, such as using objective criteria and diverse recruitment panels.

4. Reducing Bias in Leadership Assessments: A Comparison of Training and Technology Interventions: In a study published in the Journal of Business and Psychology in 2019, David J. Woehr and Crystal L. Hoyt examined the effectiveness of different interventions in reducing bias in leadership assessments. They found that both training and technology interventions can be effective in minimizing the impact of bias. For example, training can help recruiters become more aware of their biases and how to overcome them, while technology interventions can automate the assessment process to reduce the influence of human judgment.

?Overall, these studies demonstrate the importance of using objective and evidence-based methods for assessing leadership potential, while also being mindful of the potential for bias and taking steps to minimize its impact. By using innovative assessment methods and addressing biases, recruiters can identify the most promising candidates and make informed decisions that benefit the organization as a whole.

In the book, Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. Kahneman discusses how a group of parole judges in Israel exhibited high levels of variability in their decisions, despite having access to the same information about each case. This led to some prisoners being granted parole more often than others, depending on when their case was heard in the day. By implementing an algorithm that provided more consistent and objective assessments, the researchers were able to significantly reduce the level of noise in the judges' decisions.

In another example, Kahneman describes how a medical diagnosis can vary depending on the doctor who makes the assessment, even when presented with the same patient data. This can lead to misdiagnoses and unnecessary treatments. By using decision-making algorithms that factor in the patient's symptoms and medical history, medical professionals can reduce the impact of noise in their diagnoses.

Kahneman also discusses the concept of "anchoring", which refers to the tendency for people to rely too heavily on the first piece of information they receive when making a decision. For example, if a real estate agent shows a house to a potential buyer and mentions a high price, the buyer may be anchored to that price and have difficulty considering other options. Kahneman shows how anchoring can lead to errors in judgment and offers strategies for avoiding this bias.

Kahneman goes on to discuss the "halo effect", which refers to the tendency for people to judge a person or thing based on their overall impression rather than on specific characteristics. For example, if someone is attractive or charismatic, they may be perceived as more competent than they actually are. This can lead to biases in hiring and other decisions. Kahneman offers strategies for avoiding the halo effect, such as using structured interviews that focus on specific competencies.

Overall, both "Noise" and "Thinking, Fast and Slow" offer numerous examples of how biases and noise can affect decision-making in various fields and provide practical solutions for reducing their impact.

There have also been many white papers written on unconscious bias, which is the bias that occurs when individuals make judgments or decisions based on unconscious stereotypes, assumptions, or attitudes.

In the white paper "Unconscious Bias: A Primer" by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University. This white paper provides an overview of unconscious bias and its impact on individuals and organizations. It also offers strategies for recognizing and overcoming unconscious bias in various contexts, including education, healthcare, and the workplace.

Further, ?"The Impact of Unconscious Bias on Talent Management" by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). This white paper explores the ways in which unconscious bias can impact talent management practices, such as recruitment, selection, and performance evaluation. It also provides guidance for organizations on how to identify and address unconscious bias in their talent management processes.

And Finally in the paper ?"The Business Case for Diversity and Inclusion" by the Center for Talent Innovation. This white paper makes the argument that diversity and inclusion are not only ethical imperatives, but also critical components of business success. It provides data and case studies to support the idea that diverse teams are more innovative, more productive, and more profitable than homogeneous teams.

These white papers and studies highlight the pervasive nature of unconscious bias and its impact on individuals and organizations.

Unconscious bias is a pervasive problem in the hiring process, particularly when it comes to selecting leaders. Despite our best intentions, we all have biases that can influence our judgments and decisions, often without us even realizing it. For example, we may be more likely to hire candidates who look and sound like us, or who come from similar backgrounds. These biases can have serious consequences, particularly when it comes to hiring leaders.

The wrong leader can have a significant impact on the success of an organization, both in terms of its financial performance and its culture. That's why it's essential to use objective, data-driven assessments when selecting leaders.

By using objective and evidence-based assessments that are tailored to each organization's unique needs and goals, we can mitigate the impact of biases and judgments in the recruitment process and ensure that each candidate is evaluated based on their own merits. This enables us to build more diverse and effective teams that are capable of driving success and achieving our organizational goals

At Mercuri Urval, we are committed to using assessment tools that are designed to be objective, rigorous, and evidence-based. Our assessments are grounded in the latest research on neuroscience, talent development, and organizational change, and they are tailored to meet the unique needs and goals of each organization. This allows us to provide our clients with a deep understanding of each candidate's capabilities, strengths, and areas for development, enabling them to make more informed hiring decisions.

One of the key benefits of using credible assessment processes is that they can help to mitigate the impact of biases and judgments in the recruitment process.

As highlighted in books like "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and "The End of Bias," our brains are wired to make quick and often unconscious judgments based on our past experiences and cultural biases. This can lead us to overlook important qualities and capabilities in candidates or to overvalue certain traits based on our own preferences.

At Mercuri Urval, we specialize in leadership selection science and customized assessment. We use a range of tools and techniques to evaluate candidates, including psychometric assessments, structured interviews, and customized simulations. By using these objective assessments, we can help companies identify the right leaders for their organizations, while minimizing the impact of unconscious bias.

?Our approach has been proven to be highly effective. In fact, we can guarantee a 94%+ success rate for our leadership selections, compared to the industry norm of 50-60% success when relying solely on a subjective interview process. This means that our clients can have confidence in the leaders they select, knowing that they have been thoroughly evaluated and are likely to be successful in their roles.

So if you're looking to hire leaders for your organization, don't leave it to chance. Contact Mercuri Urval and let us help you find the right candidates using our data-driven, objective assessments. Together, we can build stronger, more successful organizations that are free from the influence of unconscious bias.