Improve Diversity/Equity by Replacing Legacy Requirements with This

Companies are finally waking up to the lack of diversity in their ranks and realizing that not only does it demonstrate a lack of social dignity, it is also deleterious to optimal business results. But typical of most revelations, the knee-jerk response has been about finding the "pain medicine" that makes the pain go away rather than a solution that fixes the problem in the first place (aka, treating the symptom rather than the cause.) Companies have window-dressed with platitudes and outcome commitments, postured championship by creating a new department and promoting a minority candidate to "head of diversity and inclusivity", and set departmental goals. All of which can amount to a "new year's resolution" level of efficacy. Or worse, it creates a negative pendulum swing that is still illegal (you DO know it is illegal to NOT promote or hire someone because they are a white male under 40, correct?)

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of inequity that NEEDS to be addressed but like most problems that are a result of decades (if not millennia) of systemic segregation, misogyny, and oppression...treating the symptom without changing the systems as many companies are doing is a band-aid at best. If you do nothing else but create goals, positions, and initiatives, you're not really changing anything. And while I can't address all the inequities and biases that affect different demographics in society, in my role I can at least address A BIG SYSTEM we need to change: hiring practices.

HIRING PROBLEMS

Recruiting departments are the front lines as it relates to finding new talent and increasing the visibility to a more diverse pool of candidates. Being on the front line, they also know all too well that the job "requirements" they are given automatically reinforce the status quo. Things like "college degree", "relevant experience", or "X - X years of experience" are ALL keeping things they way they were and what is more, they actively exclude diverse candidates. I'll summarize the problems with each.

College Degrees:

More white people have degrees (30%) than black (18%), Hispanic (12%), or Native American (5%) ...the only race that bucks the trend are Asians, of which 50% have college degrees. So college degrees automatically skew your candidate pool AWAY from most minority groups. Requiring a college degree creates racial disparity.

Relevant Experience:

This requirement rewards people who have already been given the chance to do something. Historically, white men were the ONLY ones who were hired to do certain roles. (Did you know that women could not open their own bank account until the 1960s?!) So there is a continuation of that bias by requiring "relevant experience." Additionally, if companies have required college degrees for a role (see above), it will be hard to find a minority or female candidate with the experience you are looking for because they never would have qualified to GET the experience.

Years of Experience:

There are two concerns with this one. The first is analogous to the one above and has the same impact. The other problem, is this totally negates the idea of "entry level" roles that provide the experience you are requiring. So it becomes a Catch-22 problem. To get a job you need experience...but you need experience to get the job. Additionally, I have seen years of experience that supersede when that experience was even available in the market. Imagine seeing "3-5 years experience with COVID-19 response planning" - COVID 19 didn't even exist 3 years ago!

A HIRING SOLUTION

Every one of the above "requirements" is an assumed proxy for capability. There is an (incorrect) assumption that having a degree or X number of years experience makes you good at something. In most cases, it doesn't at all. I am certain we have all worked with someone who has been in the same role for 10 years...and they still suck. I know PhDs who I would not trust anything to. Proxies are a lazy tool. Yes, it makes it's easier...but certainly not better and as discussed above creates a racial and gender disparity.

But comfort with the status quo bends us to "we've always done it that way", and sometimes it is hard to find your way out. This can be remedied with a simple question that can produce better answers:

What will that legacy requirement enable someone to do?

A helpful tool in teasing this out to the right degree is a "knowledge" hierarchy known as "Bloom's Taxonomy." Bloom's Taxonomy is a learning concept that is predicated upon the concept that to do higher level thinking...you first need to understand the basics. For instance: to change a tire, you need to know: what a tire is, understand how much air should be in it, detail how tires are generally attached, use a wrench, etc. If you don't understand those things and can't use a wrench...you will never be able to change a tire. I know a ton of people with college degrees who cannot change a tire. Hell, I know mechanical engineers who probably can't change a tire. So using those proxies instead of testing for actual ability may leave you with a non-diverse candidate pool that STILL can't do what you need. Using Bloom's Taxonomy can help with both.

Luckily, the different levels of Bloom's Taxonomy have corresponding verbs with which you can construct job descriptions to show the CAPABILITIES you require.

Eliminating proxies that rely on historic, financial, and circumstantial opportunities reduces the racial and gender disparity when it comes to creating the best candidate pool. Now you might think this will result in you getting TONS of unqualified candidates as a recruiter...and I can tell you from experience, as you get better at using Bloom's Taxonomy...this does NOT happen. We used this model to create capability requirements for a Senior Database Engineer...and we got exactly who we needed and very few candidates who weren't qualified. Additionally, if the initial proxy is a certain number of years experience, you can loosely map it to the levels depending on the capability you seek.

DO THE WORK

This is the work that needs to be done. To change the impacts of a broken outdated and exclusionary system...we need to change the system. This is just ONE of the systems we need to change but it is a start and it is something you can do TODAY that will have a huge impact moving forward. Hire people who can do the things you need them to do...not people who simply put something on their resume. I can fabricate a resume, I can fabricate a college degree, I can fabricate my LinkedIn profile...I cannot fabricate my knowledge or ability. All of which you can test for.

At the end of the day, you want people who can DO the job...not just people who have HAD the job. Having the job and doing the job are two different things. I HAVE a minor in Spanish...but you should not hire me as a translator. If a college degree in Philosophy has enabled me to do anything...it's to recognize bullshit when I see it, and your legacy proxies are absolute bullshit. (and no, a degree in Philosophy is not required to recognize bullshit.)

If we want a better world for all...spraying perfume on bullshit isn't gonna do it. We have to do the work and remove it.

And I could be wrong. But if you want to learn more about using Bloom's to clean up your job postings, I'm happy to connect. Working together is how we change the world.