top of page
  • Writer's pictureMaryna Khomich

Understanding Cognitive Biases in Recruitment: Insights from Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow"

In the recruitment process, hiring specialists draw on more than just their experience and professional knowledge; they also tap into their intuition. However, like anyone else, they are prone to cognitive biases—systematic errors in thinking that can lead to incorrect evaluations and decisions in recruitment.


Daniel Kahneman, in his renowned book "Thinking, Fast and Slow," categorizes thought processes into two distinct types:

System 1: This is fast and intuitive, operating automatically with little to no effort.

System 2: This is slow and rational, demanding significant mental effort and focus.

While System 1 is efficient in many scenarios, it is also often a source of cognitive biases that can detrimentally impact the quality of recruitment decisions.


In this article, we will delve deeply into the various cognitive biases Kahneman describes, exploring how they can emerge during the hiring process and discussing strategies to mitigate their influence on candidate selection.


Cognitive Biases in Recruitment
Daniel Kahneman "Thinking, Fast and Slow"


The Anchoring Effect


In "Thinking, Fast and Slow," Daniel Kahneman delves into what he calls the anchoring effect. This is a mental shortcut that heavily shapes our decision-making process. It happens when the first piece of information we hear—like an initial fact or first impression—sticks with us. We then use this initial "anchor" to make all our following judgments, even if it's not relevant to the decision at hand.


Kahneman points out that when we need to evaluate something or make a choice, we often lean on this first bit of info we've come across. This sets up a mental baseline or "anchor." Any further information we get is then adjusted based on this anchor, usually not enough, which skews our final conclusions. Even if this anchor has little to do with the situation, it can still sway our thinking and decisions more than it should.


In hiring, this can play out when the first details we learn about a candidate, such as their resume or the initial minutes of an interview, overly influence our opinion of them through the entire recruitment process. For example, if a candidate has worked at a well-known company, that fact might anchor our view, making us weigh their subsequent achievements and interview responses more favorably. This could mean we end up overlooking or undervaluing other important traits or experiences that are less immediately impressive but potentially more relevant.


The Halo Effect


In "Thinking, Fast and Slow," Daniel Kahneman examines the halo effect as part of his discussion on cognitive biases that affect how we perceive and evaluate others. The halo effect occurs when our impression of one standout characteristic of a person, whether it's their appearance or a specific achievement, influences our assessment of their other qualities.


Kahneman points out that our overall impression of someone, whether positive or negative, can strongly influence our opinions about their specific traits or abilities. For instance, if someone is physically attractive, we might automatically assume they are also intelligent, kind-hearted, competent, and trustworthy. Similarly, if someone has performed one impressive act, we tend to view them more favorably in other aspects of their life or work.


He also references studies showing how people’s judgments about one aspect of someone can unintentionally influence their assessments of other aspects of that person's personality or activities, often leading to an overestimation or underestimation of their true qualities. This is especially crucial in fields where accurate and objective evaluations are important, such as hiring, performance assessment, or academic selection.


In the context of recruitment, the halo effect can manifest when a single outstanding achievement of a candidate, such as studying at a prestigious university, interning at a well-known company, volunteering, participating in professional events, or developing a personal project, dominates the evaluation process and biases the decision in their favor. This can result in other important aspects of the candidate’s qualifications or potential weaknesses being overlooked. Therefore, to minimize the impact of the halo effect, it's important to use structured interviews and comprehensively assess all of a candidate's qualities, rather than focusing solely on their most noticeable achievements.


Loss Aversion


In his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow," Daniel Kahneman talks about something called loss aversion. This idea is part of a bigger theory he worked on with Amos Tversky. Basically, loss aversion means that we feel the sting of losing something more than we enjoy gaining something of the same value. For example, losing $100 feels worse than the happiness we get from winning $100.


Kahneman points out that we're really motivated by our fear of losing. He gives the example of gambling—people are reluctant to make bets that have a 50/50 chance of winning or losing, unless the win offers a lot more than what they might lose. This shows how much heavier losses weigh on us compared to wins.


He also talks about how investors sometimes won’t sell stocks that have dropped in price because they don’t want to face the reality of losing money. This can end up causing bigger financial losses because they're avoiding the truth of the situation.

In the world of hiring, loss aversion can really affect how decisions are made.


Recruiters and hiring managers might stick to safer choices, steering clear of candidates with unusual backgrounds or education. They might do this even if these candidates could bring a lot of value to the company. This often happens especially if the managers have had bad experiences in the past with similar unconventional candidates, which makes them shy away from taking what they see as risky choices now.


Escalation of Commitment


Escalation of commitment is a cognitive bias that's a lot like loss aversion. It happens when people keep pouring resources—time, money, effort—into projects or decisions that are clearly not working out, simply because they've already invested a lot into them. This is often called "throwing good money after bad." Basically, individuals or organizations continue investing in a failing project because admitting it was a bad idea from the start feels worse than just sticking with it.


In recruiting, this issue shows up when HR professionals or hiring managers cling to old or ineffective hiring strategies, even when it's obvious they aren’t working. For instance, a company might keep funneling money into recruitment channels that aren’t bringing in the right candidates. The thought of switching strategies can seem expensive or like admitting failure, which often feels less acceptable than sticking to the known, albeit unsuccessful, methods.


This kind of bias can lead to big financial losses, a lot of wasted time, and missed opportunities because the company's resources aren’t being used wisely. To avoid getting stuck in this trap, it’s important to regularly check how effective your hiring methods are. Putting in place systems for critical evaluation and making it easy to tweak strategies early on can prevent you from continuing to invest in projects that just aren’t working. Plus, fostering a culture where mistakes are viewed as chances to learn rather than as failures can make it easier to change course when needed.


Framing


Framing, as discussed in Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow," is all about how the presentation of information can greatly influence our perceptions and choices, particularly when it comes to economic decisions or uncertain scenarios.

Kahneman points out that how we word or frame the same information can lead people to make different choices. For example, he describes a study where people had to pick between two programs: one that saves 200 out of 600 people, and another where 400 out of 600 people die. Although both scenarios are technically the same, most people choose the first option because it's presented in a more positive light, focusing on saving lives rather than highlighting deaths.


He also discusses how changing the frame from positive to negative, or vice versa, can alter preferences, even though the actual choice doesn't change. This really emphasizes the power of how things are phrased in influencing decisions.


In the recruitment field, the way information about a candidate is framed can also dramatically impact hiring decisions. For example, saying that a candidate has successfully completed 90% of their projects sounds much better than saying they failed to complete 10% of them. This approach of highlighting a candidate’s successes over their failures can make them much more appealing to hiring managers.


Question Substitution


Question substitution is a mental shortcut, which Daniel Kahneman discusses in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow." Essentially, when we're faced with a tough question that requires a lot of thinking and analysis, our brain tends to swap it with a much simpler question. This happens because our intuitive mind, which Kahneman calls "System 1," likes to take the easy route to reduce mental strain.


For instance, imagine you're asked how happy you are at your job. That's a complex question that requires deep thought. But your brain might just simplify it to how you felt this morning, which doesn't truly capture your overall job satisfaction.


Kahneman also talks about how this can happen when evaluating something like a politician's performance. Rather than digging into their political track record and leadership skills, we might just consider how confident they appeared during a speech. This simpler question is easier to answer, but it doesn't give us the whole picture.


In the recruitment world, this tendency can be quite impactful. A hiring manager might need to determine if someone is a good fit for a job, but instead, they might just focus on whether they personally like the candidate. This simplification can lead to hiring decisions based on personal preference rather than actual job suitability, which can affect the quality of hires negatively.


Confirmation Bias


In his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow," Daniel Kahneman dives deep into something called confirmation bias. This is basically our tendency to grab onto information that agrees with what we already believe and ignore anything that doesn't. We're naturally inclined to pay more attention to stuff that supports our existing views, while overlooking or downplaying information that contradicts them.


This bias sticks around because it's driven by "System 1," which is our quick, gut-reaction way of thinking that relies a lot on our emotions. It's pretty stubborn and pops up in all sorts of situations, from scientific studies to making business decisions, or even just everyday choices. For instance, Kahneman talks about investors who only listen to good news about their investments and ignore the risks, which isn’t the most balanced way to make decisions.


He also points out that confirmation bias can strengthen stereotypes and make it harder for us to be open to new ideas or change our minds. This can really hold us back from thinking clearly and adapting when new challenges come up.


In recruiting, this bias can really skew how interviewers see candidates. Say an interviewer is already impressed by a candidate’s background with a top-notch company. They might overlook any red flags that come up in the interview because they're so caught up in their initial impression. That's why it’s super important for companies to train their hiring teams on how to conduct structured interviews and assess candidates more objectively, to make sure personal biases don’t get in the way of hiring the right person for the job.


Availability Heuristic


The availability heuristic is a concept that Daniel Kahneman talks about a lot in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow." It's basically about how we think things are more likely to happen if we can easily remember examples of them happening. So, if something pops into our head quickly, we're likely to think it's common.


Kahneman points out that this way of thinking can lead us to make some pretty off-base judgments. Take airplane crashes, for example. They get a ton of media attention, so they're easy to remember, which might make us think they happen more often than they actually do. Kahneman’s studies show that people often get the probabilities of different causes of death wrong because they rely on what’s easiest to recall or what hits them hardest emotionally.


He also mentions that this heuristic can make us biased when we think about different social groups, particularly if our opinions are based on high-profile media stories. This can end up painting a skewed picture of entire groups.


In the world of recruiting, this kind of thinking can lead to stereotypes and discrimination. For instance, biases against women might be based on clichéd ideas about motherhood and maternity leave, or there might be biases against younger parents or older candidates. These biases usually stem from limited, often skewed information that's just top-of-mind due to common societal beliefs. This narrow viewpoint can cause recruiters to overlook the real potential of candidates who don't fit these stereotypical molds, potentially missing out on great hires for their organizations.


Fundamental Attribution Error


The fundamental attribution error is something Daniel Kahneman talks about in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow." It's our habit of blaming people's actions on their personality or character, without considering the circumstances they might be in. Kahneman points out that this happens because of our "System 1" thinking, which is the quick, gut-reaction part of our brain. It jumps to conclusions based on very little information, and that can often lead us astray.


For instance, if someone spills their coffee in a cafe, our first thought might be that they're just clumsy. But we often overlook things like maybe the floor was wet. This kind of thinking affects how we see and judge people's behavior all the time, whether at work, in social settings, or in daily life, and it can easily cause misunderstandings and even conflicts.


When it comes to recruiting, this error can really skew our perception of candidates who often change jobs. We might be quick to label them as unprofessional or unreliable, without considering the bigger picture—like maybe they had to leave because their company shut down, or there were layoffs, or maybe their projects got canceled. It's important to look beyond our initial judgments and consider these external factors that might be influencing someone’s career decisions.


Representativeness Heuristic


The representativeness heuristic is a concept Daniel Kahneman digs into in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow." It's about how we often judge the probability of something based on how much it resembles a typical case or stereotype, while we ignore the actual stats. This heuristic shows how our brain, particularly the intuitive part that Kahneman calls "System 1," tries to simplify complex decisions by leaning on familiar patterns and images.


Here’s an example Kahneman gives: if you’re asked to guess whether someone who is shy and loves to read is more likely to be a librarian or a farmer, you might say librarian because that fits the stereotype. But statistically, there are many more farmers out there, so the odds are higher that the person is a farmer.


This way of thinking can lead us to make some pretty big mistakes in how we judge situations and make decisions. We tend to ignore how often things actually occur and focus instead on how much they fit into our preconceived notions.


In the world of hiring, this can play out in how recruiters evaluate candidates based on their hobbies and interests. For instance, someone might assume that a person who likes team sports is automatically a good team player, or that someone into reading or collecting is better at working alone. There's also a tendency to think that people who are into extreme sports are natural risk-takers, which might make them seem like a perfect fit for a startup. These assumptions can skew how a candidate is professionally assessed and lead to decisions that might not necessarily line up with their actual skills or personality.


How can we combat cognitive biases in hiring and improve the objectivity of assessments?


Understanding Cognitive Biases


The first thing we need to do to get better at hiring is to admit that cognitive biases are real and they mess with our judgment. By regularly training our teams on how these biases work and the common mistakes we make, HR staff can start to look at information more critically. Adding lessons about these biases in our corporate training sessions can really help everyone get better at spotting and fixing these biases as they come up.


Boosting Critical Thinking and Being Open to New Ideas


It's crucial to keep sharpening our critical thinking skills. This means getting better at asking the right questions, digging deep into the answers candidates give, and double-checking our assumptions using various sources. Staying open to new ways of thinking and fresh ideas helps us make more creative decisions and cuts down on the chance that we're just going by gut feelings or clichés.


Reflecting on What We Do and Decide


Regularly taking a step back and examining our own actions and decisions can uncover hidden motives and biases we might not be aware of. By fostering a feedback culture where everyone feels comfortable talking openly about hiring decisions, we can better understand our own and our team's thought processes. It's also a good practice to look back at how the hiring process went after it's done to see how fair and effective we were, helping us improve the next time around.


Using Structured Interviews


Using structured interviews in the recruitment process greatly enhances the objectivity of candidate assessments. Structured interviews involve using a pre-prepared set of questions that are the same for all candidates. This approach helps minimize the influence of subjective factors and personal biases of the interviewers, which are often sources of cognitive distortions.


Firstly, structured interviews reduce the likelihood of confirmation bias because every candidate answers the same questions, allowing them to be judged based on the same criteria. This leads to a more fair and just evaluation, regardless of the interviewer’s biases.


Secondly, these interviews contribute to a more accurate assessment of competencies. Using standardized questions and tasks helps to more precisely measure each candidate's qualifications and potential compared to an unstructured approach, where questions can vary greatly and depend on the interviewer's personal impression.


Thirdly, structured interviews improve the comparability of results. The uniformity of the questions ensures that comparable data is collected from all candidates, which is particularly important when assessing a large number of participants. This makes the selection process more transparent and well-founded.


Fourthly, structured interviews can be supplemented with quantitative metrics to assess responses, introducing elements of quantitative analysis into the evaluation of candidates, minimizing subjective assessments, and improving the accuracy and objectivity of the hiring process.


Overall, the use of structured interviews allows HR professionals to systematically analyze and compare candidates against all key criteria, minimizing subjective influence and cognitive distortions, such as the halo or contrast effects. Creating a clear and structured assessment process not only standardizes the approach to hiring but also ensures that each candidate is evaluated fairly and objectively.


Creating and Using a Scorecard


Developing a clear and structured assessment tool, known as a Scorecard, where key job requirements are listed and each criterion is weighted, helps minimize subjective influence in candidate evaluation. This not only standardizes the assessment process but also ensures that each candidate is evaluated based on the same criteria, reducing the likelihood of cognitive biases such as the halo or contrast effects.


Involving Diverse Specialists in the Hiring Process


Bringing specialists with varied experiences and backgrounds into the selection process can enhance the objectivity of evaluations. A diversity of opinions reduces the risk of an echo chamber, where similar mindsets reinforce biases. Each participant can contribute unique perspectives and highlight different aspects of the candidates, ensuring a deeper and more comprehensive evaluation.


Using SWOT Analysis


Employing analytical tools like SWOT analysis for each candidate can help systematize the collection and analysis of information. By assessing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with each candidate, HR professionals can more objectively weigh various aspects of a candidate's profile and make informed decisions based on comprehensive analysis rather than emotional or superficial reactions.


Incorporating an awareness of cognitive biases into our recruitment process goes beyond just avoiding mistakes; it's about adopting a professional approach that improves the quality of decision-making and ensures optimal matches between candidates and roles. At our recruitment agency, we uphold rigorous standards of objectivity and transparency, guaranteeing that both our clients and candidates benefit from equitable and precise hiring practices.


By recognizing and addressing these cognitive biases, we not only enhance our recruitment methods but also establish a benchmark for excellence within the industry. We encourage potential clients to discover how partnering with our agency can simplify the complexities of recruitment through a professional, unbiased approach. Join us as we redefine the art and science of hiring, making each decision not only informed but also perceptive.

110 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page