 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
opportunity : Diversity Positive recruitment
:
Screening and shortlisting
Focusing on competencies
1 Screening and short-listing should be decided
in the context of the full set of selection criteria
– not just those relating to technical expertise and length/type
of experience.
2 Technical organizations find it easier to
focus on technical factors, but other factors – such as cultural
competence and team skills – are just as important for most CGIAR
positions. However abilities in non-technical skills, such as leadership,
team skills, interpersonal skills and ability to build partnerships, are
much harder to glean from a c.v. than technical skills. This is a major
reason for requiring applicants to submit not only their c.v. but also
a statement of how they see themselves
meeting the selection criteria.
3 Some Centers already have
introduced competency-based selection criteria to their position announcements.
For those that haven’t, the following list of competencies is particularly
relevant to most scientist/researcher appointments and to management appointments,
irrespective of whether recruitment is being undertaken on an international,
regional or national basis.
Typical non-technical competencies
for
scientist/researcher/manager
• ability to build and maintain relationships with people of diverse
backgrounds
• sensitivity to local realities, social, political or cultural
• open and non-ethnocentric style
• ability to establish and sustain good, harmonious personal and
professional relationships
• ability to demonstrate respect, attentiveness and concern for
others in a way that makes them feel valued
• good listening skills and patient with those speaking in their
second or third language
• flexibility in response to different ideas, beliefs or points
of view
Screening Process
4 The selection committee needs to decide
who is going to undertake the screening/ short-listing, and how it will
decide the final short list of candidates for interview. Will all members
of the selection committee read all applications and decide individually
who seem to be the leading candidates? What will be the process for the
committee to agree as a whole about whom to interview?
5 If not all members of the selection committee
are involved in this stage of the process, the committee needs to decide:
- which members will be responsible for screening applications, and
- what the process will be for assessing their recommendations about which candidates should be interviewed (and why), versus which applicants should not be interviewed (and why not).
6 Whichever process is followed,
it is important to guard against gender and diversity discrimination during
screening and short-listing. It is not very helpful to invest a lot of
effort in diversity-positive position announcement and interview processes,
if the screening/short-listing process filters out worthy candidates who
happen to be women or candidates from developing countries.
7 Many Centers tend to short-list via two
or more “screens”. The aim of the first screen is to reduce
the number of c.v.s to a size that can be discussed conveniently
by the selection committee.
8 First-screen criteria tend to be those
that can be quickly applied, for example the number of years experience
since obtaining a Ph.D., the number of publications in international
journals, or employment in institutions of high repute.
Impact of different
education and research training systems
9 However, this approach tends to discriminate
against scientists from developing countries (both men and women). It
is important to understand the different education and research training
systems in the countries concerned. Such scientists may appear less suitable
simply because they have fewer years’ experience or less achievement
(e.g. fewer publications) than northern candidates of a similar age.
Diversity alert
Qualified applicants from developing countries may
have less chance of getting through a first screen for scientist positions
if it focuses on qualifications and experience, simply because they have
developed through different educational systems and, thus, appear to have
had lower scientific productivity..
Impact of different patterns of
career development
10 Women scientist candidates, both from the
north and the south, may appear to have been less productive than men
candidates of comparable ages, because they have had different patterns
of career development. These two factors reinforce the need to decide
in advance on a realistic minimum length of experience and avoid
screening out those with the least experience who nevertheless meet the
minimum requirement.
Diversity alert
Some women applicants have had different career
development patterns than men and may appear less suitable because they
have fewer publications than men of the same age.
Stereotypic assumptions
11 Women also may appear unsuitable because
of stereotypic assumptions about their ability:
- to undertake particular types of work (e.g. security or mechanical services, or handling large animals), or
- to work in a particular country or location.
The second item above may also prejudice the screening/short-listing of men candidates from certain countries.
12 It is unacceptable for an international organization to rule out applicants on the basis of stereotypical assumptions about who can work where. A country regarded as difficult for a woman or a person from a developing country may be regarded in a different light by those individuals who have lived and worked in places even more challenging.
Diversity alert
Avoid screening out women and developing country
applicants on the basis of stereotypic assumptions about who can work
where.
| Another way of regarding stereotypes | |
| Stereotypic Assumption | Alternative Perception |
| Women candidates and those from certain countries tend to avoid confrontation and therefore are not strong managers. | Managers can have different styles and yet be equally successful. A polite, flexible, deferential and supportive management style often yields results that direct-talking, outwardly confident management style cannot achieve. |
| Person X will not be accepted by our partners because she or he is from country Y or she is a woman. | Partners respect technical and development expertise and interpersonal skills regardless of gender or nationality. The fact that the person is selected and trusted by a CGIAR Center often confers professional legitimacy regardless of gender and nationality. |
Drawing inferences from c.v.s
13 If a Center is screening/short-listing
on the basis of c.v.s, rather than applicants’ statements
against competency-based selection criteria, it is easy to fall into
the trap of drawing inferences that may not be sustainable.
Screening cautions
• Some individuals have many years management experience but they
still are not good managers.
• Some individuals have scores of publications yet have made little
contribution to the goals of fighting hunger and poverty.
Screening schedules
14 A screening schedule developed by CIFOR
(for a Regional Coordinator position) appears in Tips and Tools. It focuses
on seven criteria rather than just two or three and also provides a set
of “indicators” for each criterion, thus optimizing consistency
between assessors. While some of the indicators don’t strictly comply
with the observations above about drawing inferences, they nevertheless
provide an excellent basis for an informed discussion among selection
committee members.
Scoring systems
15 When screening candidates, avoid placing
excessive reliance on numerical scoring systems for the selection criteria.
A numerical scoring system for each individual criterion is useful for
making comparisons among candidates against each specific criterion. However,
it is unsound to simply add up each candidate’s scores for all criteria
and then use this total score as the principal basis for short-listing.
Some of the criteria have to rely on indicators rather than clear measures,
meaning a candidate’s score on such criteria may be only a very
rough estimate of her/his capability.
How much additional investigation should be
carried out?
16 Past practice has been to encourage those
involved in the screening/short-listing process to do what they can to
get beyond the numbers and acquire a full picture of each candidate’s
abilities and potential, including asking for detailed references and
using personal networks to obtain additional information. This
practice is no longer recommended. For the reasons explained
in Tips and Tools “Checking references”, there is too much
risk of this being an invasion of privacy and, in the worst case scenario,
compromising the candidate’s current employment.
Diversity alert
Confine screening/short-listing to the candidate’s
application. Do not make enquiries through personal networks.
No women were short-listed!
No-one from a developing country was short-listed!
17 If this is the outcome from short-listing,
Centers are going to have both immediate and longer-term problems. In
the short-term, there is the obvious concern about possibly having ruled
out worthy candidates for the wrong reasons. If there were no women/developing
country candidates, then the problem is further back in the recruitment
process than the short-listing stage.
18 In the longer term, failure to short-list
women/developing country candidates obviously will impair the Center’s
ability to meet its own 1-, 3- and 5-year G&D goals.
Investigation
19 If, despite following the above guidelines,
the selection committee manages to short-list:
- only men from developed countries for scientist or senior management positions, or
- only men for science support or administration positions,
then it is important for Center management to find out
why before proceeding to the interview stage.
20 The selection committee members should
explain why they were unable to shortlist women or developing country
professionals. This may provide insight into whether the selection criteria
were appropriate. For example, if the most frequently stated reason for
not short-listing developing country professionals is “lack of sufficient
experience”, the committee should be asked to consider whether the
amount of experience it requires is really essential for the post.
21 Seeking feedback from search committees
in this way can also help identify constraints to the recruitment of diverse
candidates elsewhere in the Center. For example, the fact that no women
were short listed because none applied may indicate the need for careful
targeting of position announcements to senior women through professional
associations and universities. A different sourcing strategy would then
need to be adopted for the next post advertised at this level.
22 Alternatively, the reason that no women
applied may be that the pool of potential women candidates was very limited,
in either the specific discipline required and/or in the specific location/region.
This possibility also needs to be considered when determining the feasibility
of an alternative sourcing strategy.
Reviewing the short-listing criteria (and their number)
23 If the problem with short-listing women/developing
country nationals was that they didn’t meet all the criteria, it
is sensible to review both the criteria and the number required to qualify
for an interview. Should it be necessary to meet all criteria to qualify
for interview? Would meeting 8 out of 10 be sufficient?
24 The CIFOR Candidate
Assessment Form demonstrates
the extent to which screening/selection committee members may need to
draw inferences from the candidate’s application. It is necessary
to distinguish between what appears to be “concrete” versus
what is inference. If there is too much of the latter, the proper place
to test it is at interview.
© CGIAR Gender & Diversity
Program 2006