This issue we’re about to discuss came up at a few HRTX events this winter and spring, always on the diversity and inclusion education track that we offer. Here’s the basic quandary, which has been an issue in recruiting seemingly forever: how do we get more diverse candidates and, eventually, employees? There are entire books written on this topic, and a blog post will not fully solve it. But, we need to obviously pay attention to the problem, and it’s severe.
HackerRank recently released a 2018 Tech Recruiting Report. (There’s a press release too, largely about the disconnect between recruiters and hiring managers, which is another all-time recruiting issue.)
While there’s a lot of interesting data in the HackerRank set, this might pop out the most:
-
Recruiters report that internal referrals is their top sourcing method (59%). This is problematic, considering that on average, 75% of white Americans have entirely white networks without any minority presence.
Not good.
So, what do we do?
There are any number of off-the-top-of-the-head steps, including:
- Go to where minority candidates are both online and in-person
- Prioritize diversity when you create referral programs
- Make a better business case for diversity — admittedly needing to have a “business case” for diversity is a red flag of sorts, but “business case” and “best practices” is still how a lot of the true decision-makers think, so you need to get to that spot
- Care
But there’s another piece of data in Hacker Rank’s report that could help solve the “white network” issue:
- Yet, 3 of 4 recruiters say they’ve hired a great candidate who wouldn’t have passed the traditional resume screen but aced a skills-based assessment. This shows that if companies are serious about building more diverse teams, they should be evaluating candidates based on skill, rather than who they know or whether they look good on paper. They’ll also find that they’ll be hiring more qualified candidates and overcoming the supposed “skills gap” in the process.
Right. So blind the resume (or just stop caring the resume altogether, honestly), drive it towards skills assessments, and forget the networks of employees. I know this runs counter to how a lot of thought leadership and vendors talk about multiplying your potential for A-Level talent, but the fact is, 3 out of 4 white people seem to only interface with other white people — a problem in and of itself, but especially for recruiting. It’s time to blow up that network and subvert it with a skills focus.
Seems more like a moral imperative than a business case, doesn’t it?
Originally from New York City, Ted Bauer currently lives in Fort Worth, Texas. He’s a writer and editor for RecruitingDaily who focuses on leadership, management, HR, recruiting, marketing, and the future of work. His popular blog, The Context of Things, has a simple premise — how to improve work. Ted has a Bachelors in Psychology from Georgetown and a Masters in Organizational Development from the University of Minnesota. In addition to various blogging and ghost-writing gigs, he’s also worked for brands such as McKesson, PBS, ESPN, and more. You can follow Ted on Twitter @tedbauer2003, connect with him on LinkedIn, or reach him on email at [email protected]
Ted,
Great article! I recruited for a little over a year in the Tech Field, and as a white individual, I have to admit that 90% of my network was also white. I felt guilty, yes, however, there is a much more secretive reason for selecting white candidates over other individuals. The reason… Sub-Vendors. Unfortunately, a large number of non-white candidates go through Sub-vendors, which are organizations that control the resumes and job paths of their employees. These companies (which are primarily located in India) will send out thousands of resumes to our systems, flooding our networks and emails with their candidates resumes. If we choose to call these individuals, we are greeted by their “boss”, usually a man who would, what we called in the industry, “pimp” out their candidates. He would negotiate the price point (usually 25% higher than white candidates), and choose their hours and length of contract. Keep in mind this is done without the consent of the actual candidate. The trade off… H1B visa require work. If the candidate wants to stay in the US, they must go through the vendor, or struggle to compete. Lets say we hire someone through a sub-vendor for HP. HP pays us 100 an hour for the candidates work. We then pay the sub-vendor, 75/hr for their candidates time. Then the sub-vendor pays their candidate, 30 an hour. The candidate just lost… HARD. Lastly, the sub-vendors choose when they want to pull their candidates. Meaning if another, better opp comes along. POOF, your candidate is gone, and you and HP must start over.
I don’t want to profile people, however it is encouraged.
I would dig deeper and write a piece about that.