HR Newswire sign up
Follow us on twitter
Search:

EDITOR'S BLOG
Nov 6, 2012

Show unemployed some love

Hiring managers’ bias against unemployed workers shrinks talent pool
    

By Todd Humber

Back in July 2010, I used this space to tell the story of a couple of employers in the United States who said — blatantly and openly in job postings — that unemployed workers need not apply.

At the time, Sony Ericsson, hiring for a new facility in Georgia, and Latro Consulting, a South Carolina-based recruiter looking for grocery store managers, told unemployed workers — at a time when the ranks of the unemployed were swelling as the recession rocked the global economy — not to bother handing in resumés.

The language quickly disappeared from the postings when reporters started calling, which is good. It’s simply not a good business practice to arbitrarily shrink your candidate pool, regardless of the economy.

While this overt form of discrimination has seemingly come to an end, a couple of new studies have shed light on a bias that exists among hiring managers — they prefer candidates who are currently employed. (For full coverage of those studies, look for the Nov. 19 issue of Canadian HR Reporter.)

To which I can only say, “guilty as charged.”

I’ll be honest: If I were hiring an editor, and two resumés landed on my desk with identical qualifications — but one was working and the other had been laid off — I’d be inclined to favour the employed candidate. I wouldn’t put it in a job posting, nor would I refuse an interview, but there’s no denying the bias exists.

Why? The logic is simple — the person who is still working must be more valuable. The candidate who lost her job must not be as good an editor, otherwise she would have kept her job, right?

Not necessarily. While favouring the employed worker is the knee-jerk reaction, it’s certainly not the right one — which is so often the case when it comes to knee-jerks. There are simply far too many variables in play.

One key question to answer is, “Why is the unemployed candidate out of work?”

It could be because she worked in a unionized setting, and was the last one hired before the business ran into financial trouble. She may have been the best worker in the building, but management’s hands were tied by the collective agreement when it came time to reduce staff.

Perhaps she quit because her former employer asked her to do something unethical. Or maybe she toiled under an abusive, abrasive manager and finally hit a breaking point and resigned? Or that same bad manager could have campaigned relentlessly to force a good worker out the door because of a personality conflict.

Maybe the worker was targeted by a bean counter in finance because her salary was out of line with her colleagues?

Performance is just one reason why a worker finds herself on the unemployment line, yet too often there’s an assumption that, when people lose their jobs, it’s their own fault — they didn’t perform, they weren’t up to the task, they’re simply “not a good worker.”

That’s a pretty huge conclusion to draw just by looking at a resumé that shows a gap in employment.

Hiring managers need to resist this bias and give all qualified candidates a fair shake, regardless of employment status. It’s the only way to know for sure you’ve hired the best person for the job.

Todd Humber is the managing editor of Canadian HR Reporter, the national journal of human resource management. He can be reached at todd.humber@thomsonreuters.com.

© Copyright Canadian HR Reporter, Thomson Reuters Canada Limited. All rights reserved.
    
COMMENT ON THIS BLOG POST
Headline for your comment (Optional)
Name (Required)    
Email Address (Required, will not be published)
Comment (Required)
All comments are moderated and usually appear within 24 hours of posting. Email address will not be published.
COMMENTS
Just ask more questions to find your next star
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:50:00 AM by Sharon Branch
I am relieved that somebody finally recognizes that solid candidates are being missed because they carry the unemployed stigma.

I left my solid Bay Street career in HR to raise my children. I knew it wouldn't be easy to re-establish it but I was willing to pay my dues to do the best thing for my kids. I kept my HR knowledge current by taking online courses and attending seminars while I was home.

I took the CHRP exams at my own expense and passed. I volunteered at large HR conferences whenever I could. And when all that was available when I did return full time were contract positions, I happily did what was necessary from HR admin to HR specialist roles.

However, when I am placed in competition for a permanent role with somebody of equal or less experience or education, they always choose the employee that is currently employed. My former employers can give me glowing recommendations. I often go above and beyond for the company that hires me, but I seem to be like that house on MLS that has been on the market for a little too long. There "must" be something wrong with it.

As a former recruiter, I know employers need to be cautious and ask a lot of questions because some folks are unemployed or job hop for the wrong reasons. However, whenever you see a resume with gaps don't automatically toss it aside. Just ask more questions. You could be missing out on your next star employee. I know that the employer that finally takes a chance on me will be paid back tenfold.
The bias against frequent job movers
Monday, November 19, 2012 11:45:00 AM
Angelo's mention of people who move frequently from job to job is interesting, and I think deserving of further converstaion. With the cost of recruitment pegged by some at 2 and 1/2 times a position's annual salary, is there not a risk associated with hiring individuals whose resumés show they are likely to move on in a year or so? What do other readers think?
Biases in hiring
Friday, November 09, 2012 2:25:00 PM by Angelo Pesce
I agree that there are biases in hiring. In addition to the one you mention there is the bias that if you changed jobs too frequently you can't be reliable and the opposite; If you stayed in one place too long you don't have the get up and go or ambition to move ahead. Most of these biases, and I am sure there are more, if they ever had any credibility are based in times that no longer exhist. All the reasons you mentioned plus the pursuit of balanced work lile, the bullying, and things like commuuting, family responsibilities etc. are other good reasons in my opinion. Hiring managers should really question all these truisms.
Respect the Unemployed!
Tuesday, November 06, 2012 6:07:00 PM by Paul
Absolutely agree! I've tried to make a point of getting back to as many unemployed job candidates as possible. Sure, you can garner more skill information, but you also help them feel more a part of the working world.