How do the halo effect and the horn effect impact recruitment?

The halo effect is a form of cognitive bias in which if we have a positive impression of one aspect of a person, we tend to assume that other aspects of them are also good. For example, if we see a beautiful girl, we may assume that she is smart, kind, and trustworthy, even if there is no evidence to prove it.

The opposite of the halo effect is the horn effect, which occurs when we don't like one aspect of something so we don't like the rest of it either. For example, we don't like a movie just because we don't like the director, not because of the quality of the movie. We don't like drinking coffee at a certain shop because the seller is unfriendly, not because the drink is not delicious. We underestimate our colleagues' work because we simply don't like their personalities, not because they are incapable.

Both the halo effect (being influenced by positive impressions) and the horn effect (being haunted by negative things) are phenomena that are not only common in everyday life but have permeated and impacted the past. Recruitment process according to many.

First, when reviewing a CV, the Halo effect makes us impressed by the fact that candidates have studied at famous schools or worked with famous brands and hastily evaluate them as the perfect piece for the business. career and ignore the rest of the application. Once we like someone, we often find reasons to continue liking them. On the contrary, the horn effect causes us to immediately eliminate candidates just because we vaguely notice an "unsuitable" point in their CV.

Or in the interview, with the Halo effect we can be so fascinated by the candidate's appearance and professional attitude that we act more friendly, ask easier questions and are sure that they are the choice. appropriate and ignore warning signs such as lack of relevant work experience. On the other hand, the horn effect makes us more suspicious of candidates or ask unnecessarily difficult questions, quickly having a bad feeling just because their way of speaking is not good or their body language is awkward.

Second, when we see that a candidate performs well in one area, the Halo effect makes us assume that they will also do well in other areas. For example, if they have excellent communication skills, we can assume that they are also good analytical, excellent time managers and masters of the art of leadership. On the contrary, with the horn effect, if the candidate is not good at a certain aspect, we immediately think: Then things A, B, C probably can't be done.

All of this will lead to biased hiring decisions, based on subjective criteria rather than the objective requirements of the job, or missing out on potential candidates for reasons that have nothing to do with ability. do their job. So how to avoid this risk?

“We can hire the wrong people if we are affected by the Halo effect or the horn effect”

Minimize the impact of Halo effect and horn effect in recruitment

There are a number of ways that I have applied and confirmed that can minimize the consequences of the Halo effect and horn effect while promoting objective recruitment activities, such as:

Review CVs anonymously

A quick and very effective way to eliminate bias in the early stages of recruitment is to "hide" details such as name, address, hobbies, school... and instead focus on on experiences and skills that demonstrate the candidate's ability to do the job well.

This helps us select CVs based on the right factors and not be influenced by unconscious bias. The giant furniture manufacturer Ikea in Sweden has also applied this form of CV screening. As a result, of the 18 candidates selected for the next round, 15 passed the interview stage and the entire selection process.

Set specific scoring criteria for the interview

This means that for each open position, we create an interview script that applies to all candidates. In particular, questions should help us test specific skills instead of probing candidates' backgrounds, and create a scoring system to easily rank candidates fairly.

Each question will have a scale of 1 to 5, along with notes about what a good, average, and bad answer will be.

When it's time to start the interview, try to score each question independently. Don't grade them more harshly on the second question because the candidate didn't answer the first question particularly well.

Each candidate will naturally stand out at one point compared to another, but when there are clear criteria, the overall assessment will not be much distorted, so we will have a more comprehensive view of skills. of each candidate.

Use the wisdom of the crowd

Even with scoring criteria, interview bias will still lurk somewhere. If we are not sure, we can use what is called the wisdom of the crowd in the belief that the collective judgment is more accurate than the reasoning of an individual. When multiple interviewers evaluate candidates (usually 3), individual biases are balanced.

Having a diverse interview group also sends a strong message that a business values ​​diversity in its workforce and respects and fairly values ​​different opinions. This can make our business more attractive to a wider range of candidates, improving our ability to attract top talent from all backgrounds.