Feedback:
- What biases are displayed in the scenario?
It appears that there were several biases at play, particularly on the part of Alex, and possibly Phillip. If we consider Alex firstly, she appeared to be favouring Helena, the neurotypical candidate, and formed some pre-conceived ideas about them. For example, she took a liking to the sporting hobby of this neurotypical candidate and seemed to correlate that to both their competence and whether they’d be a good fit for the team. Conversely, Alex didn't seem to warm to some of the hobbies of one of the neurodivergent candidates and appeared to believe this was indicative of that candidate not being a good fit for the team.
Other biases include anchoring bias where Helena, the neurotypical candidate, was discussed first, and the other candidates were being compared to the first candidate. Confirmation bias was also evident. Alex seemed to have had a pre-determined opinion about the candidate she believed was most suitable for the role and looked for evidence to back this up while dismissing evidence that might suggest this candidate may not be the best fit for this role.
Some group think was also evident. Phillip seemed to show awareness of potential biases, however, Alex often brought Phillip round to her point of view. Therefore, Phillip was gravitating towards Alex’s opinion rather than presenting a viable challenge.
- Do you think the revelation near the end of the case study, where two individuals were neurodivergent, will change the opinion of those viewing the case study?
It’s important to be aware that neurodiversity, or other diverse conditions, traits, or characteristics should be taken into account when it comes to recruitment because it can affect a candidate's performance. This can also apply in other settings such as the appraisal system within a workplace.
An amplification of the Integrity principle states that “Members must show respect for others in the way they conduct themselves.”
- Is an objective measurement always the best measurement to use?
You could argue that the metric is an objective measurement, with clear outcomes and it can be helpful in grading candidates. However, this case study has highlighted that metrics aren’t always inclusive or fair. Some candidates will have specific requirements and need adjustments to their circumstances to enable them to perform better, or at least to showcase their talents, and metrics such as these don't necessarily allow a level playing field because the obstacles that candidates face are not necessarily addressed.
If we consider Howard, the autistic candidate, who wasn’t as good at the group work and oral communication. It could be that he was in an environment where he was over stimulated, such as a noisy crowded room. If he wasn’t given a ‘heads up’ that there was a group exercise, it could have impacted on his performance and impeded it such that Howard was unable to demonstrate his competence.
Ashley, the dyslexic candidate, may have struggled to read written instructions during the assessment, especially if the instructions were in a small font or in a big block of text. If Ashley wasn’t given sufficient time to read the instructions properly, that could have significantly impeded her performance, and, again, prevented Ashley from demonstrating her competence.
- Are assessment centres and an office environment always an inclusive and fair environment for individuals? What improvements could be made?
Assessment centres often try to mimic the working environment, insofar as is possible, and within the parameters that are specified. But in this case study, where there might be neurodivergent candidates, or indeed others who need certain modifications and adjustments being made, the centre may not be reflective of the working environment. Therefore, some adjustments need to be considered to make the assessment centres inclusive. This is not just for equality, that is, so everyone is subject to the same assessments, or the same circumstances, but rather equity. Everyone should have a level playing field where obstacles that some people face are removed, to make the assessment fairer and more inclusive.
The difference between being equal and being equitable is a key point. In this case study, there could have been some straightforward, simple adjustments made to accommodate the two neurodivergent candidates. Howard, for example, could have been given some time on the day to help him navigate his way around the social aspect. There could have been clearer instructions in terms of directions of how to get there in the first place, and what the agenda was going to be, so that he could prepare. Ashley, the dyslexic candidate, could have been given some software to help both with reading any written material on the day, and with dictating any written pieces of work. These simple adjustments don’t give these individuals an unfair advantage—rather, they remove the obstacles which are impeding them from demonstrating their competence.
- What do you think of Alex and Phillip’s approach to not employing someone with a poor grade?
In this case study we need to consider whether it's the grades that are poor, or whether it’s the assessment that needs to be scrutinised i.e. is the assessment fair and inclusive? In recruitment, in particular, you need to be careful about the metrics used, and what is being defined as ‘poor’. Is the grade a true reflection of competence, or should the assessment system incorporate adjustments to make it more inclusive so that it's a level playing field?
There’s an interesting concept that neurodivergent individuals display a ‘spiky profile’ compared to neurotypical individuals. This means that there may be certain traits where they hugely outperform neurotypical individuals, and other traits where neurotypical individuals will outperform them. For example, autistic individuals tend to be very strong at attention to detail and identifying trends and patterns, whereas dyslexic individuals tend to be strong at oral communication, seeing the big picture, and managing group discussions. In this case study, Howard and Ashley were displaying those strong traits. Together, they might form a highly effective work partnership with strengths across a wider range of skills, and they could outperform two neurotypical individuals. Therefore, if someone has got a poor grade in one skills area, it isn’t necessarily a reason to rule them out.
- Were Phillip and Alex unprofessional?
Phillip and Alex had a specification, remit and a metric that may have been used in the company for some time. So according to them, perhaps they do feel that they were being professional and doing what was expected of them. However, they could have considered the Actuaries’ Code, particularly the Integrity principle. This principle states that “Members must show respect for others in the way they conduct themselves.” Here, there was scope for both Phillip and Alex to think about how the recruitment could be positioned differently to be more inclusive and fairer. Phillip recognised that new information had come to light, but he could have challenged a bit more and suggested a reassessment, or at least a reconsideration of the candidates. It might be difficult to hold the assessments again, but they could consider inviting the candidates back for another interview and include a more valid, more appropriate exercise to assess the candidates in a more inclusive way.
Summary
We've highlighted in this particular case study that neurodivergent individuals, and any individuals who are different, can bring a huge wealth to the profession via their differences. It’s important to look beyond somebody's underperformance as such because there may be some issues which have impeded their performance and prevented them from really showing their competence. It’s also important to be aware of our own biases and be mindful of them if we want to foster a more inclusive workplace.
