What is anonymised recruitment?
Anonymised recruitment is a recruitment approach in which personal information about a candidate is removed from their initial application, including their name, gender, age, location, years of experience and school or university names.
The concept of anonymised recruitment started with orchestras, where female performers removed high heels (to avoid the click clack noise!) and then auditioned behind a screen. This process successfully addressed discrimination against women, with 50% more women advancing to the final audition stages.
It is disappointing that it was necessary in the first place, but still, if the results are that dramatic, then surely, we should all adopt this approach immediately!
But before we all grab our Tippex, it turns out that although it can work to reduce bias in graduate, entry-level, skills-based or technical roles, it may actually hinder the process for senior and board appointments….
The challenges of anonymised recruitment
Depersonalising the recruitment process for leadership roles is actually a rather odd concept. With an increasing emphasis on aligned values, leadership qualities and cultural considerations – often including the need to drive culture change – anonymised recruitment fails.
As a senior-level recruiter, I work hard to identify and engage the right people to apply for leadership roles. This means researching people and testing their values fit before encouraging them to apply. Why would you want to ignore the insights gained from these early interactions?
Most organisations trying to remove bias will only choose to remove some identifying factors in which case it renders the process neither anonymised nor open; it is simply bizarre!
Limitations of anonymised recruitment technology
Another thing to consider is that depersonalised and automated processes often put candidates off before they even apply.
Recruitment software designed for anonymised recruitment can make the process more robust, but it’s rarely user-friendly and often creates more barriers to application.
Algorithms used by an ATS can filter out qualified candidates, and more candidates are using AI to increase the likelihood of their applications passing the initial screening. Trying to tailor an application to rigid algorithms particularly impacts people who struggle with reading or writing, such as those with dyslexia or ADHD.
I don’t think you can talk about diversity if you’re only receiving applications written by a computer program… do you?
Does anonymised recruitment address bias or hide it?
As a candidate, I wouldn’t want to be part of a skills-only matching process. I want potential employers to know who I am and to be interested in me as a person. Why leave out the details to get through the door at the early stage, only to find out in an interview that they don’t want somebody like me later? I’d rather not waste my time. Much better to spend time finding organisations that appreciate my human qualities.
In Asif Sadiq MBE and Sana Butt’s excellent article in 2019 ‘How NOT to recruit diverse talent’ (if you haven’t read it yet, I highly recommend it), they talk about how organisations need to step back and take the lens off diversity-specific recruitment strategies – and actually show candidates who they are:
“We must learn to become better at being genuine and authentic. We should ask questions, be honest and vulnerable.”
I acknowledge that we all have biases, but recruitment is a process of recruiting a human being. Statistics suggest that ‘Steve’ may get more interviews than ‘Stephanie’ and ‘Michael’ may get more interviews than ‘Mohammed’ but removing identifying factors does not solve the issue.
If you are concerned about your recruitment panel’s bias, why not address the problem with unconscious bias training? Don’t put a dressing over the issue with an anonymised recruitment process.
If your panel are at risk of being biased or discriminatory, what makes you feel like someone with a difference would be able to thrive in your team?
For me, the key is to become aware of our biases, focus on inclusion, and appreciate the value of diversity.
Consider the experience of my colleague, Bill.
Bill once applied for a job using his full name, Bilgin Yuksel, and was turned down. In feedback, the CEO said Bilgin’s English was “excellent for his second language”.
Bilgin is British, has lived in the UK all his life, and only speaks English.
Now, as it happens, Bill feels that being turned down was better than wasting his time working in an environment where people make inappropriate assumptions about him.
However, if this were a anonymised recruitment process, he might have got an interview and perhaps an offer, and the issues might not have come out of the woodwork until it was too late.
People should be proud of their names, backgrounds, and heritage. After all, it’s what makes them unique. Stripping that away for the benefit of a recruitment process rather than taking positive action to manage bias feels wrong.
Instead, I’d rather help those recruiting to appreciate diversity and understand their biases. That way, they can manage bias and actively promote inclusivity and the benefits of diversity.
What does an anonymised recruitment process actually guarantee?
So where are the guarantees in an anonymised recruitment process? We once ran a blind process that selected an all-white, male field of candidates. All the diverse candidates failed to progress to the interview. We had worked hard to develop a diverse field of candidates, and the blind recruitment process worked against us.
Non-disabled people tend to get disproportionately more opportunities than disabled people. As do white men, who have often had the chance to acquire more skills and experience than lesser-represented groups. This means that people who haven’t been able to access opportunities will be discriminated against, even if they have more potential and motivation and could bring more to the role. The anonymised recruitment process at a senior level favours traditional groups, which is counterintuitive to the aim of broadening diversity.
So although anonymised recruitment can be a useful tool for reducing bias in entry-level or skills-based processes, it does nothing more than remove the individuality you are seeking in more senior hires.
The best recruitment processes focus on finding differences. At Peridot, we’re aware of our potential bias in our clients and ourselves and work hard to be inclusive and open-minded. An anonymised process cannot challenge bias.
A focus on internal culture and inclusion would better serve us all. You’ll never be diverse if you can’t be confident about promoting an inclusive culture. Those people who bring difference will be hard to retain, should you be lucky enough to get them to join you in the first place!!
About the author:
Clare Chesworth is Head of Social Justice at Peridot. She is passionate about recruiting executive and board leaders for organisations supporting marginalised communities. With an empathetic and driven approach, Clare can find the right leaders to suit your mission. If you’d like to get in touch with her, you can connect with Clare on Linkedin or send her an email.
