Disability interview guarantee

[Islandsadness]

Has anyone got any experience with a system which actually works in diversifying the interview pool?

I'm hiring at the moment and my employer has a system where we don't use cvs, but assessments. Anyone scoring over 50% who has declared a disability is automatically invited to interview in addition to the top 5 candidates.

I've just been told I've someone added to my interview list for next who got 50%. But all the other candidates I'm interviewing got 80-90% so a big gulf.

AIBU in thinking that this is just a waste of the persons time and is setting them up to fail? Or am I wrong and this is the best way to try and level the playing field?

I'm disabled and guaranteed an interview, I never get offered a job - I have a progressive degenerative condition. I would be a PITA for any employer, you'd want me to use a wheelchair to minimise the risk of an accident but I don't use one and I'm not entitled to a free one, so you'd have to provide it. Its a massive waste of my time and yours. It's not levelling anyone up.IDK what the answer is. Society used to be more inclusive than it is now imo. Employers with more than 6 staff used to have to employ a minimum percentage of disabled staff. Looking back to the 1960's, there used to be jobs that were routinely offered to blind or deaf people, and children with a disability were often taught a trade.

@Thelnebriati , you make some very good points. Lots of talk about inclusivity but I've seen the Occupational Health questionnaires differently abled people get sent by HR departments and they're actually quite insulting on occasion, and blatantly looking for an excuse not to employ someone
I guess the OP will have to play along with HR, and remain as open-minded as I'm sure they are whilst interviewing. But ime these obligatory interviews don't achieve anything but waste both parties time and encourage false hope on the part of the interviewee

I think it is completely pointless telling you someone has been invited under the scheme.

In my (limited) experience with this process you still have to be a reasonable candidate as in meeting the require number of essential recruitment criteria to be guaranteed a interview.

For example if there were 5 essential criteria scored on a 3 point basis (1= doesn’t meet required level, 2= meets required level, 3= exceeds required level) you would still have to interview any candidate who ticked the disability interview scheme box if they scored 2 on all criteria, no matter that you may have 20 candidates who have got 3s on all criteria.

Also I think (but this might in some organisations be different) that applying under the scheme gives you the opportunity of reasonable adjustments to help level the playing field for the interview/test phase of recruitment.

As a person who could get an interview this way, I don't want to be invited to pointless interviews where I'll never get the job.

OP - I can see your point. But I will say it depends what exactly the test is and whether it would discriminate against those with a sensory deficit or learning difficulty. Combine that with the fact smarts does not necessarily equate to being really personable for example, which the disabled person may have buckets off.

I have seen a trend though towards disability (and gender) inclusivity (social model and SJT) and I do think it's swung too far the wrong way and instead of introducing changes that are meaningful, organisations tend to introduce inclusive measures because they fear litigation etc and because of virtue signalling. In theory, of course, we should strive to be inclusive but practically, the infrastructure is not in place. That's not say that we do nothing - but a better balance needs to be struck.

I work for a well known employer in mental health and there philosophy is by offering those we support support workers etc means they can then go out into the world as a non-disabled person, but this is ‘ivory tower thinking’. It's not realistic and by not acknowledging the actual issues means we are putting vulnerable people in positions of risk.

I would however, always remain open to interviewing owing to the guaranteed system as you just don't know. I would reflect on your bias and give the person walking through the door fair chance.

It depends on the assessment. Watson Glaser for example is notoriously difficult for some neuro diverse people as it tests a very specific way of thinking. We have had a few people with autism at work do terribly on the test but been the best candidate at interview and gone on to do a great job.

So in our company if someone scores a 4 they will get involved to interview, even if the pass mark is increased to 5 or 6 (out of 7). I am entitled to have a guaranteed interview but never do as I wouldn’t want to waste my own time if I got a 4 and pass mark was 6. But I don’t blame people for using it

I never apply on the scheme even though I am eligible. My disability is mostly unseen and can easily be accommodated in most roles. After being offered I will usually ask more questions that I was too afraid to ask during the interview stage. Usually any questions about the practicalities of travel etc. I've had to turn down one role at this stage as they hadn't made it clear during interview stage and I felt I couldn't ask more probing questions without putting them off me.

I have had experience of using the scheme with a government dept, I was successful but placed 'on a list' to be offered the next available role at that grade. Except one never materialised and my offer expired after 1 yr. It was a low level grade as well, hundreds of roles existed at that level in that location. That's how they get around it.

I've also had an offer withdrawn when I asked about disabled parking for my Day 1. Stupidly didn't have the signed contract at that point, lesson learned. I don't declare anymore.

It's not that kind of testing - it's scenarios based assessments on doing the job. So it measures a candidates ability to be good in the role rather than us sifting based on education or experience.

So on the one hand it prioritises ability over personal characteristics, but then this does the opposite.

To the person who said I shouldn't have been told, I think I'd notice the extra candidate! Plus I have to see their scores as part of the decision making

I've been interviewed on this basis. It's actually soul destroying! I knew that's why I'd got the interview.

Completely ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time.

I’m disabled and I have previously used this scheme but, after several experiences, wouldn’t do so again.

One on occasion, I had a phone call asking me to confirm if I was actually disabled or made a mistake on the form. I confirmed I am but when the interview invitation came through I declined it. I felt too awkward as it was clear I’d only got it on that reason.

A few times I was made to feel like no one was interested in what I had to say or that they were actually surprised and confused as to who I was. However, the last time I used it, the interviewer was outright rude and made it clear they hadn’t wanted me there.

I can appreciate the logic behind the scheme but it marked me out as different the second I ticked the box and appeared on an interview list when the manager hadn’t shortlisted me. I don’t know what the solution to the issue is, but I don’t think it’s this.

I have a hidden disability currently not working since the pandemic as I'm an unpaid carer for my daughter. I want to return to work I didn't know about these interview practices this is actually soul destroying when ready to go back into the work force I know now not to disclose it.

The last couple of companies that I have worked for have included employing some people with different types of disabilities.

Some people required special equipment

Some people originally started working in the office, then worked from home or do hybrid with some time in the office & some time at home

I am definitely behind working with a wide variety of people

Sometimes people just need to be given a chance to succeed

No one is arguing that, the question is about value of interviewing people have have done much worse in the application process.

I’ve always assumed that these schemes are more geared towards conditions like dyslexia etc that may affect their scores on a written test, or their CV being written well etc. I have a physical condition which I disclose but it’s not really anything that would affect my application so the scheme doesn’t need to be applied for me (although I’m sure it is). I think it’s a good idea in theory but in practice, isn’t really worth it 😂

Large companies have info that says that they do not discriminate in relation to age, sex, gender, religion, race, disability etc

I seem to remember that MPs needed more female representation at one point in time

Society is made up of different people
Therefore, the work place should be too

I don't understand who you're arguing with?!?

This thread is about exactly how to achieve this, because the current ways don't work. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Can you not work from Home?

Why does it matter that an Asian, white and black person is scanning your shopping at Tesco? Or stacking shelves? Or an electrician?

No one is arguing that, the question is about value of interviewing people have have done much worse in the application process. The relatively poor showing in the application process so far may be a result of the disability. The guaranteed interview scheme gives someone the opportunity to demonstrate their merits even though the rest of the process has seen them placed at a disadvantage

I’ve definitely had experience of candidates who scored highly on applications being a disappointment in person, so I would say give it a try and see if you’re surprised. The point is that it widens the pool of people you see, and increased the chances of you picking someone who on paper you might not have done.

It matters when a white male is the store manager and the Asian and black people are stacking shelves. And the same in ASDA, ALDI, Morrisons, Waitrose, any supermarket you visit.

As a woman who grew up 70odd years ago, it did have an effect that doctors were male, so were clergymen, so were solicitors, bank managers (in the old days when decisions were made by bank managers not algorithms) -even if you didn’t imbibe the message that women were unsuited to these jobs, it told you that it’d be a difficult workplace.

I worked in male dominated workplaces. Systems and practices designed by men work well for men, for example, without prior warning calling a meeting for 6.15pm when my child has to be collected from childminder before 6pm, discussing important stuff standing around the bar, where the conversation is literally a foot above my head. Not so important when it’s just affecting the careers of female staff members, far ranging effects when it’s systems affecting the general public.

I have experience of this when hiring. It's to level the playing field for candidates who might be at a disadvantage - essentially they are benchmarked against the role requirements when deciding who to interview rather than against other candidates.