Résumé screening heuristic outcomes: an examination of hiring manager evaluation bias

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-04-2021-0115
• Published date: 30 August 2022
• Date: 30 August 2022
• Pages: 104-134
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
• Author: Ozias A. Moore,Beth Livingston,Alex M. Susskind

R

esum

e screening heuristic

outcomes: an examination of hiring

manager evaluation bias

Ozias A. Moore

Department of Management, Lehigh University College of Business, Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania, USA

Beth Livingston

Department of Management and Entrepreneurship,

University of Iowa Henry B Tippie College of Business, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, and

Alex M. Susskind

Nolan School of Hotel Administration, Cornell S.C. Johnson College of Business,

Ithaca, New York, USA

Abstract

Purpose –Hiring managers commonly rely on system-justifying motives and attitudes during r

esum

e

screening. Given the prevalent use of modern r

esum

e formats (e.g. LinkedIn) that include not only an

applicant’s credentials but also headshot photographs, visible sources of information such as an applicant’s

race are also revealed while a hiring manager simultaneously evaluates a candidate’s suitability. As a result,

such screening is likely to activate evaluation bias. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of a hiring

manager’sperceptions of race-system justification, that is, support for the status quo in relations between Black

and White job candidates in reinforcing or mitigating hiring bias related to in-group and out-group

membership during r

esum

e screening.

Design/methodology/approach–Drawing from system justification theory (SJT) in a pre-selection context,

in an experimental study involving 174 human resource managers, the authors tested two boundary conditions

of the expected relationship between hiring manager and job candidate race on candidate ratings: (1) a hiring

manager’s affirmative action (AA) attitudes and system-justifying attitudes and (2) a job candidate’s

manipulated suitability for a position. This approach enabled us to juxtapose the racial composition of hiring

manager–job candidate dyads under conditions in which the job candidate’srace and competency for a posted

position were manipulated to examine the conditions under which White and Black hiring managers are likely

to make biased evaluations. The authors largely replicated these findings in two follow-up studies with 261

students and 361 online raters.

Findings –The authors found that information on a candidate’s objective suitability for a job resulted in

opposite-race positive bias among Black evaluators and same-race positive bias among White evaluators in

study 1 alone. Conversely, positive attitudes toward AA policies resulted in in-group favoritism and

strengthened a positive same-race bias for Black evaluators (study 1 and 2). We replicated this finding with a

third sample to directly test system-justifying attitudes (study 3). The way in which White raters rated White

candidates reflected the same attitudes against systems (AA attitudes) that Black raters rating Black

candidates exhibited in the authors’first two studies. Positive system-justifying attitudes or positive attitudes

toward AA did not, however, translate into the elevation of same-race candidate ratings of suitability above

those of opposite-race candidates.

Research limitations/implications –Although the size of the sample is on par with the percentage of

Blacks nationwide in private-sector managerial-level positions ideally, the authors would have preferred to

oversample Black HR managers. Given the scarcity of focus on Black HR managers, future researchers, using

diverse samples of evaluators should also considernot only managers’and candidates’racebut also their social

dominanceorientation. Moreover, it is important that future researchers use more racially diverse samples from

other industries to more fully identify the ways in which the dynamics of system-justifying processes can

emerge to influence evaluation bias during r

esum

e screening.

Practical implications –Advances in technology pose new challenges to HR hiring practices. This study

attempts to fill a void regarding the unintended effects of bias during digital r

esum

e screening. These trends

EDI

42,1

104

Funding: This research was supported by a grant from the Bert Trucksess Foundation and CSCRL.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 29 April 2021

Revised 3 January 2022

1 July 2022

Accepted 21 July 2022

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 42 No. 1, 2023

pp. 104-134

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-04-2021-0115

have important HR implications. Initial screening of a job applicant’s credentials while concurrently viewing

the individual’s photograph is likely to activate subconscious evaluation bias, produces inaccurate applicant

ratings. This study’s findings should caution hiring managers about the potential for bias to arise when

viewing job candidates’digital r

esum

es and encourage them to carefully examine various boundary conditions

on racial similarity bias effects on applicant pre-screening and subsequent hiring decisions.

Social implications –The study’s results suggest that bias might be attenuated as organizational leaders

engage in efforts to understand their system-justifying motives and examine perceptions of the workplace

social hierarchy (i.e. responses to status hierarchies) linked to perceptions of the status quo. For example,

understanding how system justifying motives influence evaluation bias will inform how best to design training

and other interventions that link discussions of workforce diversity to the relationships among groups within

the organization’s social hierarchy. This line of research should be further explored to better understand the

complex forces at work when hiring managers adopt system-justifying motives during hiring evaluations.

Originality/value –The authors address the limitations of prior research by examining interactions between

boundary conditions in a real-world context using real human resources hiring managers and more

contemporary personnel-screening practices to test changes in the direction and strength of the relationship

between hiring manager–job candidate race and hiring manager evaluations. Thus, the authors’findings have

implications for hiring bias and understanding of system-justification processes, particularly regarding how,

when and why hiring managers support the status quo (i.e. perpetuate inequity) even if they are disadvantaged

as a result.

Keywords R

esum

e screening, Hiring Bias, Suitability, System justification, Selection decisions

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Despite ongoing efforts spanning over 50 years, Black–White employment inequality

persists (Dobbin and Kalev, 2021;Quillian et al., 2017). As Ant

onio Guterres, Secretary-

General of the United Nations, states in the forward, “together, we must challenge the status

quo and take action to tackle deep-seated as well as emerging inequalities once and for all”

(United Nations, 2020, p. 3). Simultaneously, opposition to race-based policies in employment

and recent national debates call for a renewal and restoration of the status quo (Ng and

Stamper, 2018;Khilji, 2021). The observed racial disparities in employment have generated

renewed interest in understanding how status quo and group social hierarchies maintain and

justify intergroup behavior (Amis et al., 2020).

Individuals often rationalize and defend the status quo, even if they are disadvantaged as a

result, which is consistent with system justification theory (“SJT”;Jost and Banaji, 1994).

Disadvantaged members justify the status quo to avoid frustration and reduce the mental

harm associated with being part of a system that compromises their self-interest. Many

individuals adapt to the status quo because “what is”perceptions shape “what ought to be”

perceptions (Haack and Sieweke, 2018). The impulse to maintain the status quo may be

particularly likely to occur in organizations because organizational social hierarchies depend

on well-defined roles with varying levels of responsibility and power (Magee and Galinsky,

2008). An organization with well-defined roles may imply a status quo that embraces the

sustained differentiation or status hierarchy that exists among individuals and/or groups

(Amis et al., 2020).

Consequently, hiring managers may be motivated to see their organizational system

hierarchical status quo as good, fair and right (Jost and Banaji, 1994), therefore supporting

existing hiring practices, social structures and social rank norms. The nature of the position

enables hiring managers to maintain and shape an organization’s hierarchical status quo by

deciding who will next occupy a position within the organization’s social hierarchy (Sidanius

and Pratto, 1999). An organization’s status quo largely reflects dominance hierarchies, with

the result that individuals at the top enjoy disproportionate status, access to jobs and

resources (Jost et al., 2004). Hiring managers therefore often expect job candidates to look, act

and think in ways that preserve this organizational social structure (Fiske et al., 2002).

Hiring

manager

evaluation bias

105