"Blinded" application/resume reviews

  1. 0
    Have any of you or your facilities utilized blinded application/resume reviewing systems? By blinded, I mean that all demographic information (name, address, telephone, e-mail address) are removed from the application prior to review by the hiring manager. Even better would be if every resume or application was reformatted into plain text so that from a presentation standpoint every applicant was on even ground.

    If you've never used or even considered anything like this, what are your thoughts on such a system?

    Thanks,

    nicuguy
  2. Get our hottest nursing topics delivered to your inbox.

  3. 11 Comments so far...

  4. 1
    Name is helpful. Maybe I, or a coworker, knows them-or of them. Reputation is important, and may influence if I want to see them or not.
    Address and email, largely irrelevant, but if I have a bunch of good candidates, and can't see everyone, the person 50 miles away gets seen after equal candidates who live closer.

    When their resumes come through our online application, everyone's paperwork gets dumbed down; but that isn't intentional.
    If someone puts in the effort to create a superior product, that should count for something.

    TIP: Always bring a nice clean copy of your resume with you, just in case.
    llg likes this.
  5. 0
    Quote from MrChicagoRN
    Name is helpful. Maybe I, or a coworker, knows them-or of them. Reputation is important, and may influence if I want to see them or not.
    Address and email, largely irrelevant, but if I have a bunch of good candidates, and can't see everyone, the person 50 miles away gets seen after equal candidates who live closer.

    When their resumes come through our online application, everyone's paperwork gets dumbed down; but that isn't intentional.
    If someone puts in the effort to create a superior product, that should count for something.

    TIP: Always bring a nice clean copy of your resume with you, just in case.
    I appreciate your response. Name may be helpful, but there is ample evidence that it can be harmful due to unconscious biases, particularly toward names that are stereotypically black or Middle Eastern-sounding. If a person applying is known to the staff or manager, the applicant should have ways of letting them know they applied. When someone has that good of a reputation, it isn't hard to find ways to move them through the system. Address and e-mail are not at all irrelevant again due to individual biases on where people live or perceptions regarding their personal life/non-relevant factors if they are using an e-mail address that may not follow the professional convention including some form of first and last name, etc.

    I am not suggesting that this information should never be revealed to the hiring manager and HR. I am suggesting that there is some benefit in considering each application for interview on the experiences and exploits contained within instead of extraneous information that has no impact on the person's actual or potential performance in the role. I probably should have stated that this question was pure speculation and pondering the logistics and impact of using such a system. As a nurse with a business degree, trying to improve processes and equality are very important to me.

    thanks again,
    nicuguy
  6. 0
    I'll go you one better. In their infinite wisdom, our HR department has decided that we don't get to see employment applications at all during the interview process. They have also told us that we cannot ask applicants to bring them in, and we are not allowed to look at resumes or reference letters. Someone got the bright idea that this "levels the playing field". Our rejections from probation have probably tripled since they did this.
  7. 0
    Think three of the four items listed as excluded are relevant.

    Their telephone isn't, IMHO.
  8. 2
    I can see it during the first stage of screening ... but at some point in the process, I need to be able to get a sense of "who the person is" so that I can make a judgment about whether they care enough about the job to do a good job ... whether they can interact with patients, staff, etc. well. I don't believe you can adequately interview someone without knowing at least their name, what their background is, etc.

    There is more -- and should be more -- to selecting candidates for a job than just their categorical/numerical information. It can't all be test scores, grade point averages, etc. At some point, you need to talk to the person and find out who they are. Selecting wisely is part of the "art" of being a manager. Whoever thinks that only "objective facts" and "numbers" should be considered doesn't fully understand management and does not respect the art of management ... or the positive element that human judgment can bring to the task.
    NEWRNC and Orca like this.
  9. 0
    Quote from llg
    There is more -- and should be more -- to selecting candidates for a job than just their categorical/numerical information. It can't all be test scores, grade point averages, etc. At some point, you need to talk to the person and find out who they are. Selecting wisely is part of the "art" of being a manager. Whoever thinks that only "objective facts" and "numbers" should be considered doesn't fully understand management and does not respect the art of management ... or the positive element that human judgment can bring to the task.
    I completely agree. In addition to not allowing us to review applications, our HR department has now decided that we have to justify not hiring anyone who achieves above an arbitrary score cutoff on the interview, that scoring above this level means that they have "passed" the interview. I explained to them that hiring a health care professional is not a pass-fail proposition. I put it to them that if they were the one receivng care, they would be much better off with someone who was screened by a panel of professionals who had done the job and knew what was involved in it rather than someone who was hired because they had enough points. The people we hire may be making life-and-death decisions. This isn't like hiring someone to answer the phone, and it shouldn't be treated like it is.

    I have interviewed a number of nurses who did reasonably well answering interview questions, but they clearly weren't suited to our operation. Some did not have a good command of the English language. Others answered well but exhibited bizarre behavior during the interview (one recent applicant repeatedly laughed at her own answers and at some of the questions). Some exhibited problems with following orders or getting along with people in authority. There are a number of reasons that you don't hire people who interview well.

    I am a DON in a correctional facility, and our type of work definitely isn't for everyone. Personality attributes can sometimes be almost as important as tecnhical skills.
  10. 0
    Think I know what you mean, orca.

    But I wouldn't consider someone who doesn't speak / understand English well, or comes off as "bizarre," or who demos probs "following orders" or "getting along" with management as an applicant that "interviewed well."
  11. 0
    Quote from Havin' A Party!
    Think three of the four items listed as excluded are relevant.

    Their telephone isn't, IMHO.
    I can only assume that you mean that name, address, and e-mail address are relevant. I'm curious how that information can tell you objectively in your initial screening about my potential performance in a role?

    Quote from Orca
    I'll go you one better. In their infinite wisdom, our HR department has decided that we don't get to see employment applications at all during the interview process. They have also told us that we cannot ask applicants to bring them in, and we are not allowed to look at resumes or reference letters. Someone got the bright idea that this "levels the playing field". Our rejections from probation have probably tripled since they did this.
    I find this to be a silly policy. Clearly the information on their resume regarding their previous positions, education, and skills is relevant and should be known to the hiring manager ahead of time. Your HR department sounds like it has a few issues.

    Quote from llg
    I can see it during the first stage of screening ... but at some point in the process, I need to be able to get a sense of "who the person is" so that I can make a judgment about whether they care enough about the job to do a good job ... whether they can interact with patients, staff, etc. well. I don't believe you can adequately interview someone without knowing at least their name, what their background is, etc.

    There is more -- and should be more -- to selecting candidates for a job than just their categorical/numerical information. It can't all be test scores, grade point averages, etc. At some point, you need to talk to the person and find out who they are. Selecting wisely is part of the "art" of being a manager. Whoever thinks that only "objective facts" and "numbers" should be considered doesn't fully understand management and does not respect the art of management ... or the positive element that human judgment can bring to the task.
    I am not arguing that this information should never be made available, only that the initial screening should be done without regards to information that has NO relevance to a person's ability to perform in a job role. If you are actually interviewing someone, of course their name is important, though the goal of a blinded system is to ensure that qualified applicants get to the interview process without being weeded out in a conscious or subconscious manner due to irrelevant factors like their name, address, etc. Test scores, GPA, etc have been shown to have little relevance at all. Google just finished a HUGE study of their hiring factors and showed that once you get a person about three years out of school, there is almost no correlation between a high GPA, test scores, and their performance in a job role.

    As for the art of being a manager, I won't disagree with you that there is an important human element involved. I am simply pointing out that when it comes to hiring and interviewing, our ability to choose the right candidate is very poor because of the human factor.
  12. 0
    Hey there, Nicu!

    Here's how I see name, address and e-addy relevant:

    NAME: Possibly someone on the selection team or fellow / sister staff member may have worked alongside the applicant and may be able to furnish fabulous info on performance, fit, etc.

    ADDRESS: Ability to physically get to work timely, if at all, during trying times... snow and ice storms, emergencies, etc. May also necessitate addressing the issue (NPI) if the commute would be extraordinary long.

    E-ADDY: Ridiculous e-addresses may call into question maturity, level of professionalism, or other concern.


Top