13

ATS compatible with name-blind recruitment

Hello everyone

Is there anyone who is using an ATS that supports name-blind recruitment and could share their experience? Our current ATS contract is up in February and I'd like to move to a system that can do this.

Thanks

Elizabeth

6402 views
  • The only ATS I'm aware of that is making a science-led effort to eliminate recruiter bias is BeApplied:

    https://www.beapplied.com/
  • In reply to Robey:

    Drat. I've just had a look at their site and pricing starts at £299 per month. I can't justify that.
  • I'm using Natural HR as our HR database and this includes an ATS. I just checked their settings - there is an 'anonymise candidates' option, but it's not clear what this does. I don't think you are interested in a wider HR database but just the ATS, but thought I'd mention it in case.
  • Also interested in this - we're looking at an ATS but it's this element that's giving us a problem - we anonymise all applications but it's an arduous task.
  • In reply to Joanne O'Hagan:

    That is exactly what I'm thinking about.

    Before I had done any research, it seemed to me that name-blind recruitment would just mean that bias surfaced later in the process and the better approach was to help people uncover their unconscious biases and "re-educate" those with conscious biases - David B shared a link to some really interesting online tests. However, having researched it, it seems that name-blind recruiting makes a quantifiable difference to the numbers of women and BAME applicants who are appointed. I just don't think we have the capacity to manually anonymise all applications.

    £299 for BeApplied isn't that much in itself, but as I've just said in another thread, we get our ATS free in return for buying advertising. The bundle of sites we buy includes sites we would use anyway but at a lower price. If we went for BeApplied, we'd have to buy the advertising on top. Such is life in an SME.
  • In reply to Nina Waters:

    I'd be reluctant to switch database as ours is so well embedded in the organisation.
  • In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

    We have an advertising deal with Webrecruit (mentioned in the other thread) so have been looking at their ATS and I've strongly fed back about creating anonymity in the process and suggested that I might only make a decision when that sort of option is available. I've been using blind sifting since the late 2000s and it's been frustratingly slow to catch on.

    I would agree with you that it's an approach that's a very useful tool for helping people put some things to one side - I do notice when managers talk about our applicants, that they gender them even though they don't know...it's interesting.

    A Google for 'does bias training work' pulls up lots of discussions where the idea of our ingrained biases being so individual, nuanced in their expression, and complex to tackle that it's merely scratching the surface, not creating the desired outcomes. However, as part of a toolkit, I feel it can only help, but packaged along with all the other things that can reinforce the benefits of creating an inclusive workplace - and for me, blind recruiting is another tool in the box.
  • Elizabeth, please could you point me in the direction of the research you found I would like to read through it myself.
  • In reply to Rachel:

    There’s some on the CIPD main site.
  • FairHire is built with blind-recruitment in mind. Here is the website.

    https://www.fairhire.org
  • In reply to Eva:

    This looks interesting - thanks for the link.

    Perhaps as customers of these systems we can start demanding all providers develop blind recruitment. It's not difficult or impossible, just requires them to invest and do some work. Too long been swept under the carpet of not doing it because it's harder, instead of doing it because it's the right thing.
  • In reply to Joanne O'Hagan:

    Hear, hear. Well said, Joanne.