How do you debunk the "Safe Bet" narrative in hiring?

In some recent talks about inclusive hiring, I couldn’t help but wonder why there was so much conversation about the “safe bet.”

What is the safe bet? A “safe bet,” according to the online dictionary, is a thing in which confidence can be placed regarding a future outcome. Around hiring, the “safe bet” is a term often used to describe the “traditional candidate.” In finance, this might be someone who graduated from a top MBA school. Or, in biotech, someone who published in one of the top scientific journals.

These markers are assumed to be indicators of future success and feel tried and tested. As many of us have experienced, however, in hiring, there are no guarantees. Even when using a rubric to match the safe bet, not all candidates succeed. In those cases of a failed safe-bet employee, hiring managers often keep the rubric and instead attribute the failure to other reasons such as the employee’s personality. Further, these safe bet criteria may not even mirror successful leaders in the organization. While a top MBA may feel safe, in fact, the majority of Fortune 100 CEOs succeeded to their positions without an MBA.

The “safe bet” rubric is problematic as it can also be used as a synonym for “like me” or “like the hiring team” in experiences, demographics, age, etc. Perpetuating the narrative of a safe bet, therefore, makes someone who does not match those qualifications feel like the “risky bet.” Thus, difference becomes synonymous with “risky.”

The “safe bet” is an example of two mechanisms of bias: A “higher bar” and “leniency.” Some candidates get an easy pass into the interview slate (leniency), while others face increased scrutiny (higher bar). Thus, the narrative of the safe bet in hiring can be used as a keyhole issue to help see bias in people processes, in order to block it.

Let’s examine the way that preferring a top MBA who is “like me” (from the same alma mater) can demonstrate the mechanisms of leniency and the higher bar. The hiring manager may automatically put that applicant in the “to interview” category. Then, when interviewing, instead of asking critical questions, the hiring manager may spend more time “reminiscing” about the university. Thus, the alumn may be assessed as hirable without due scrutiny; this can be considered leniency. In contrast, the hiring manager may more keenly scrutinize the non-alum candidate to assess the “risk”: “Prove that you are smart enough to succeed here.” “Did you do this project on your own?” Thus, the non-alumn has to pass a higher bar to be considered equally qualified. Even with that increased scrutiny, the hiring manager may not truly believe the non-alum is the best fit and instead, opt for the safe bet.

Thus, the idea of a safe bet provides insight into one way bias is embedded in the hiring process: Leniency and a higher bar in evaluating candidates. As a result, new employees are less likely to bring diverse backgrounds and experiences to the team and the process will be less inclusive of difference.

------

Please contribute! I’d love your examples of how this works in organizations:

1-   “Safe bet” criteria in hiring

2-   “Risky bet” criteria in hiring

3-   Ways of debunking the “safe bet” in hiring committees

4-   Examples of a “risky bet” who turned out to be the “right” hire

This post reflects musings from my work at the Stanford University Center for Women’s Leadership: An initiative to combine academic insight with real-world strategies, the Center researches how organizations can create a more level playing field, where diverse talent can innovate and excel. Many thanks to Mari Baker, Marcie Bianco, Charlene Li, and Andrew Mackenzie for your feedback on this piece.