Interviewing without prejudice

17-Sep-2008

Asking questions of candidates to determine their suitability for a position is a key aspect of a consultant's work.

But while you may know exactly the type of person your clients view as suitable for the job, the possibility of a costly discrimination case means recruiters need to be careful of how they frame their questions. However, are they being unnecessarily overcautious?

Due to the number of high-profile discrimination cases that have hit the headlines over recent years, it is easy to see why many within the industry are adopting a more cautious approach when speaking to candidates.

However, it is more often the result of the questioning than the actual questions that can increase the risk of a successful claim for discrimination against a recruitment agency.

For many recruiters, the days of cutting to the chase, when you could directly ask the questions to which you need answers, are long gone.

Interviews now often contain three times as many less controversial questions than they would have done previously just to gather the same information.

The main reason employment lawyers and HR advisers cringe when they see what recruitment consultants have asked is the obvious risk of a successful claim for discrimination.

An unsuccessful candidate may be able to plead that the reason they didn't succeed at the interview stage was due to their sex, religious belief, sexuality or even disability.

It isn't the asking of the question that is dangerous; the trouble comes if the candidate can show that the protected characteristic which they have (being female, pregnant, gay, etc) played a part in a recruiter's decision to put them forward to a client.

If a recruiter can show the selection was made on totally objective grounds, then they will be able to defend themselves against any claims.

The difficulty, however, is that the asking of the question can betray a prejudice on the part of the recruiter or the client.

Imagine that a series of candidates placed with a client all became pregnant within six months and then took lengthy maternity leave.

In recruiting the next person, you will be trying to avoid the same thing happening again, and so will be tempted to ask questions, on behalf of your client, that show you are looking for a person who isn't likely to have children.

However, if there is prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, it will be harder to show the decision was taken on other grounds.

The best defence is to ensure that all selections are based on clear and objective data — qualifications, experience and so forth.

Of course, it is better only to ask those questions that are relevant to the person's suitability. If you ask things that may seem sensitive, there will need to be a justification for doing so.

It might be reasonable, for example, to ask a female applicant for a radiography job if she was pregnant — since exposure to X-rays can be harmful to unborn babies. It would, however, be harder to justify any questions being asked, for example, about the candidate's religion or sexuality.


• If it is necessary to ask potentially sensitive questions, ensure that there will be a justification for doing so.

• Be able to show that a selection has been made on totally objective grounds.

• Any evidence of prejudice will make it harder to show the decision was taken on other grounds.

• Keep excellent records of all selection processes, including the objective data on which decisions have been based.