The Name Game
The Study
In the 2009 study commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), researchers investigated racial discrimination in the British job market by submitting nearly 3,000 job applications to various employers across the country. The applications featured names indicative of different ethnic backgrounds. The names used included:
White British-sounding name: Alison Taylor
Asian-sounding name: Nazia Mahmood
African-sounding name: Mariam Namagembe
Each fictitious applicant possessed the same qualifications and similar experience, with all having British education and work histories. The study's findings revealed that applicants with white British-sounding names received positive responses after approximately nine applications, whereas those with Asian or African-sounding names had to submit around 16 applications to receive a similar response.
Similar findings have been found in subsequent studies; 2023 Australian Study on Hiring Discrimination and 2020 UK Analysis on Ethnic Discrimination in Employment.
The Context
The findings of this study point to systemic biases within the hiring process, where implicit and explicit biases affect decision-making. Employers may unconsciously associate certain names with stereotypes, leading to discriminatory hiring practices. Others may deliberately favour candidates from backgrounds similar to their own, reinforcing workplace homogeneity.
From a people perspective, this has profound implications. If organisations fail to address these biases, they risk missing out on talented candidates, reducing workplace diversity, and fostering an environment where discrimination goes unchecked. Addressing this issue is not just a moral and ethical imperative but a business one as well, diverse workplaces are proven to be more innovative and productive.
HR leaders must consider how recruitment processes contribute to bias. Standardised hiring practices that remove personal information from initial screenings, such as name-blind recruitment, can help mitigate discrimination. Additionally, educating hiring managers on overcoming bias and ensuring inclusive recruitment policies are critical steps in fostering a fairer hiring process.
Relevance in the Workplace
For HR professionals and corporate leaders, this study highlights the need for stronger anti-discrimination policies. Here are some practical strategies businesses can implement:
Blind Recruitment: Removing names and other personal details from CVs during initial screenings can help ensure a fairer selection process.
Diversity and Inclusion Training: Regular training sessions on bias and stereotypes can equip hiring managers with the skills to recognise and counteract discrimination.
Inclusive Job Descriptions: Reviewing job adverts for biased language and ensuring outreach efforts attract a diverse candidate pool can make a meaningful difference.
Psychological Safety: Creating a workplace where employees feel safe discussing issues related to discrimination encourages openness and accountability.
Industry-Specific Evaluations: Certain industries, especially those with customer-facing roles, show more pronounced bias, with hiring managers using their customers as an excuse for their hiring decisions. HR teams should conduct internal audits to assess and address discrimination levels within their sector.
By implementing these measures, organisations can move towards a more equitable and inclusive hiring process. Addressing discrimination is not just about compliance with equality laws, it’s about creating a workplace that values diversity and provides equal opportunities for all. Ensuring fair hiring practices benefits both businesses and society, leading to stronger, more dynamic workplaces.
