Construction on the New York Stock Exchange building (pictured above) was completed on April 22, 1903.
Back then, it was vital that financial institutions looked the part. They needed to be large, seemingly impenetrable, stone buildings. People wanted to know that their money was physically secure.
Oh man how times have changed. Funny enough, a lot of us bank with online banks that have ZERO brick and mortar locations.
2017. Crazy times.
The point is, technology has forced us to reevaluate how we determine if something is safe or not.
Understanding whether digital interviewing is secure can be tough, because we can’t just glance at it and say “looks safe,” like people could when they looked at the New York Stock Exchange back in 1903. Because it’s new and more complicated, a lot of people dismiss it as noncompliant.
But a knee-jerk yes or no isn’t the answer. Instead, you have to do research to figure out if a piece of technology is safe. And as you know, research takes time. A lot of time.
Because we know you’re busy, we’ve done the research on digital interviewing. We’ve read a number of statements from the EEOC’s Office of Legal Counsel and summarized what you need to know below in part 1 (spoiler alert: they said it’s cool to use video).
But that’s only the beginning. TTI has built features in our platform to actually improve compliance for organizations. I’ll talk about how in part two.
Alright, here we go.
Part 1: What The EEOC Has Said
Back in 2010, The EEOC Office of Legal Counsel wrote a letter about the implications of adding video to your recruiting process.
They started off by stating the obvious:
“The EEOC enforces the federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination by employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.”
We already know this. Don’t discriminate! Later on, they talk about the legal implications of using video interviewing in the process.
“The EEOC laws do not expressly prohibit the use of specific technologies or methods for selecting employees, and therefore do not prohibit the use of video resumes.”
Okay, so it’s fine if we use video. The EEOC then takes the conversation a layer deeper by saying that it’s not illegal to learn about a disability via video, as long as that information is not used improperly.
“A covered entity does not violate the ADA if it observes from video images that an applicant has a disability. This is analogous to meeting an individual during the application process and observing that he has a disability.”
All of that being said, the EEOC agrees there are certain best practices that can be put in place to make sure video isn’t being abused.
“A covered entity could proactively formulate and communicate to selection officials how the video resumes can help assess specific qualifications and skills that are necessary for success in the position. Additionally, a covered entity could require that several people assess each video resume in relation to the stated job requirements.”
The two big things they recommend are assessing candidates on job specific qualifications and skills, and having more than one person review each video.
That’s where TTI comes in.
Part 2: Why Video Prescreens Are MORE Compliant Than Phone Screens
You might be surprised here.
Standardized Question Sets
We’ve built a system that lets you review a standardized set of questions, and assess every candidate on a standardized set of criteria. We’ve also built it in a way that helps you get these responses in front of multiple people during the process.
But how does this help?
Let’s say you’re hiring an entry-level salesperson. You review resumes, and set up phone screens. In this case, let’s say you do 10 total phone screens. Are you asking the same questions on every call? Or what if different recruiters are involved?
OR, what if untrained hiring managers are doing their own screening….
You see, pretty quickly we can get to a place where candidates aren’t being asked the same questions. If that’s the case, how can we assess them fairly?
With video, you pre-set 3-8 questions that candidates answer. The same questions for every candidate applying to a specific role.
Things can get even scarier when we think about the criteria we are using to assess candidates.
Standardized Assessment Criteria
Keeping with the salesperson example, let’s say we’re down to two candidates, and I’m the hiring manger. One candidate is a recent graduate from THE Ohio State University, and the other, a recent grad from the University of Michigan.
I grew up in Columbus, Ohio and went to Ohio State. I LOVE the Buckeyes, and let’s be real- I HATE Michigan.
Now, if I’m assessing a candidate in an interview, I’ll probably be tempted to favor the Buckeye over the Wolverine. How could I not, right?
Ok, so I’d like to think I wouldn’t actually assess candidates on their college football allegiance. And I’d definitely like to think I would never review a candidate on other, more serious, non-job related attributes (attributes that could be learned from a resume, in-person interview, or yes, video). I’d like to think I know better, because I’m in and around recruiting every day.
But if I’m being honest, it’s easy to see how slippery of a slope assessment can be when we don’t have a standardized approach in place. We’re programmed to like people like us, so we need a plan to fight bias during all stages of the interview process.
That’s why TTI’s assessment criteria (pictured below, bottom right) is so helpful when reviewing candidates. It forces recruiters and hiring managers to assess candidates on qualities that you decide are important, such as experience, communication skills, and knowledge of your space. Not where they went to school, or what they look like.
(By the way, there are 2 huge Michigan fans at our company, and they’re great. In fact, they are two of our top performers. Good thing we hired them.)
Getting Feedback From Multiple Stakeholders
Okay, so now we can review standardized candidate responses, and assess candidates in a standardized way. They only thing left, according to the EEOC’s recommendations, is getting candidates in front of multiple reviewers. In many cases, this is a recruiter and a hiring manager, but it can also be expanded to include multiple hiring managers.
Without video, this is a pain. It means scheduling multiple rounds of interviews. With TTI, we can share completed video responses directly with hiring managers, and elicit their feedback right away, without the need to schedule! Imagine having a score breakout from every stakeholder in the process that looks something like this:
The big benefit here is that companies can have a consensus driven hiring process without slowing things down and risk losing great candidates.
A Worst Case Scenario
Ok, so you’re probably thinking something along these lines:
That actually could make my process more compliant! But it also seems like a lot of work, I think things are good the way they are.
To that, we say…
What if the unthinkable happens? What if the EEOC audits your current process?
Do you have the data to show why you picked one candidate over another? Do you have the notes in your ATS from every key stakeholder? Is your candidate selection process data-driven and consistent?
Our platform will give you a clear record (inside or outside your ATS) of why you chose the candidates that you did.
No ‘he said, she said’ if an issue arises. Only cold hard data detailing the hiring decisions you made. Hiring decisions made on a person’s qualifications for the job.
If your process is running in a compliant way, you’ll know. And if it isn’t, you can start having the hard conversations to make things right.
The real question isn’t whether or not video interviewing is compliant.
The real question is, how compliant is your process? Is it sturdy and solid, or just a stone facade concealing real issues?