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?

@MereDintofPandiculation you are living in a majority white country. You are most likely to have a stem professional who is south Asian, East Asian or black African..... background.

And does it matter?

You don't need a tick box of perceived race to have a fair society.

Have they told you who is scoring 50%

Personally I don't think you as the interviewer/decision maker should see the scores ideally, instead someone should shirt list and you should be given a list of candidates and interview to reduce bias. Excellent employee s could struggle with a test. I've been offered nearly every job I interview for yet if there's a pre test I never get a look in, I'm rubbish at multiple choice and short answer tests (give me an essay and I'd nail it!)

It's not an academic test it's a assessment of the ability to do the job.

You're given a scenario and asked to explain how you would go about it, what you would need to consider, what success would look like etc. I work in a field where strong reasoning and writing skills are vital.

So if you do badly at that it's very very very likely you'd do badly in the role.

However I agree with the poster that often the best candidate on paper is a disappointment. But in this case I'm interview the top 5 and the 12th scorer, which seems daft!

@spoonfuladay I scored them, so yes I know. The assessment scores are a factor in who gets appointed, not just in who gets to interview so the panel needs to know.

I always found that ticking the box to say you wanted your application to be treated as a Two Ticks application only guaranteed that I would 'fail to reach the requirements of the job specification', even with direct, specific experience of the role in question. I have never been offered an interview under the system. Not once. Had loads of interviews where I haven't ticked the box, though, and never had any problem getting or keeping a job - as long as I only declared after appointment.

So they've done brilliantly to get past the gatekeeping in the first place.

But it sounds like you've already decided they're wasting their time attending interview, so it's still fulfilled its purpose in weeding out those pesky disabled people daring to apply for a job.

Does "disabled" include autism, adhd, mental health issues in the context of these tick boxes on applications?

Yes.

Yes, I thought it always worked like this! Certainly does in my org.
And it relies on the CV, not the assessments as certain disabilities' make automated assessments harder but have no bearing on job performance.

We have that in Denmark - if you tick the box you come to interview, and the employer has to send a written explanation of why they chose another candidate. Unless they can show that you don't meet the criteria. I work at a jobcenter and one of my lovely clients has been using this. She said during our last meeting that she was going to stop as she was having a hard time dealing with the rejections.

So has anyone ever got the job after being given an interview having ticked this box? Or is it just to make the company look good and equal etc

The problem is, it should nto be pointless, you should be able to train people so they can aqchieve the 80/90 and pent more time for them. It's sort of disgusting that you think that someone is a waste of your time, and that as a company you are not prepared to meet the eneds of prospective candidates even if it means further training them. It also shows how unprepared workplaces are for disabled candidates, expecting them to be 100% the same as everyone else, despite, you know, a disability.

My last company I got an interview and they are positive disability employer etc.

Not sure if it was ability etc.

There are some agencies who do brilliatn training and help companies to hire disabled people, you may want to have a look and attend one of those or speak to them and educate yourself a little bit, OP.

@Thelnebriati Was there really such a requirement? I can't find any formal records of it.
The job market in the 1960's was very different, people could get jobs after leaving school and earn enough to buy a family home in their 20's. Police officers etc got offered accommodation with the job. The whole climate of work is very different these days.

But also in 2023 there are just soooo many more disabilities. Not only neurodiversity but things like anxiety, depression etc.

Also the statistic are skewed. For example 80% of people with autism are unemployed until the last few years it was very difficult to get diagnosed unless you had massive, massive issues, which would prevent employment. Recently there has been lots of awareness and many people who just 'struggled' without knowing why have gone and gotten themselves diagnosed... many employed so that figure's going to get diluted. They will be mixed in with those who need lots more help and muddy the waters.

Husband and I are both ND but in ways that don't massively impact job performance and are easy to manage. There's no point in us ticking the box. Similarly people with long-term health conditions who can get the job on their own steam don't benefit from disclosing.

Furthermore you can also ask for adjustments without ticking the box, on forms I have seen one box for 'Guaranteed Interview/Disability Confident' and the other reasonable adjusment,

It seems to me that those who actually tick the box are signalling they they would otherwise not get an interview and are hence written off.

Btw your condition wouldn't be a problem for my employer you'd simply be offered fully remote working, many others do as well as a reasonable adjustment... the Civil Service (a former employer) are quite good with these things I have found.

Where have I said that this is a waste of my time please?

I think you'll find my post is about if these schemes are fair on the disabled applicants.

You complained an appicant with a much lower score was offered and interview and already decided they won't get the job- but rather than looking at yourself and how you and people areound you COULD make the job accessible and help them improve to get to the desirable level, you already know they won't get it and feel sorry for them because they waste theirs (and as a result your precious) time.
I once read only under 20% of autistic adults are in full-time employment (and presume for other disabilities the figure is similar and equally low), you are part of the problem and maybe you could be one of the people who could change that? An idea.

If you think the scheme is unfair on the applicants, think that otherwise they would nor even be getting those interviews to begin with. What fails is not a scheme, but companies who can't be bothered putting any effort in employing and supporting disabled candidates.

To me this is a poor and pointless way of doing things, it's lumping everyone with a disability conveniently in together and not giving anything beyond that a second thought. It's a tick box exercise to look like something is being done.

Pointless just putting someone through to interview, for my ds (aspergers/dyspraxia) for example it would be just setting him up to fail. What he needs is for the interview to be made accessible.

Here are some suggestions from employment autism for example that all companies should consider but probably don't, because all they legally have to do if offer an interview.

You could incorporate the following accommodations as standard into your recruitment policy. Bear in mind that a candidate may request these as part of the Reasonable Adjustments that they are entitled to:

• Provide candidates with detailed information about both the role and the nature of the interview in advance, for example the competencies that will be assessed.
• Where possible, provide interview questions in advance to allow reflective applicants to consider their responses. This is particularly relevant for roles where decision making doesn’t need to be instant and will allow all applicants, not simply those with autism, to better demonstrate their skills and experience.
• Invite written submissions, either in the form of permitting candidates to bring notes with them, or actually asking them to submit answers to interview questions in advance, which will then form the basis for the interview.
• Permit notes – some applicants might wish to write down questions, or refer to interview preparation during the interview.
• Ask one question at a time, to make it easier for applicants to answer and not have to worry about forgetting the other part of the question.
• Be specific, knowing how much information to convey can be a challenge for some applicants, so where possible define how many examples you might want and be prepared to tell a candidate when they have provided sufficient information.
• Invite clarifications – applicants may worry that if they don’t understand the question that this reflects badly upon them. You can mitigate this by proactively inviting them to ask you to clarify their answer, or ask the same question using different words if the answer is not what you expected.
• Avoid hypothetical questions which may be difficult for autistic applicants to answer with certainty, given the inherent unknowns. Instead focus on competency based questions, drawing on lived experience.
• Many applicants are nervous about requesting adjustments and some won’t know what adjustments might help them. If you can provide them with a list of potential adjustments in advance, you signal that you are an inclusive employer and help them understand what you might be able to do to help them perform at their best.

And and he can ask for reasonable adjustments.

Application process - tick the disability box.

When offered interview - reasonable adjustment

Yes - I know of several occasions. They scored better in the interview than in the application and proved well-suited to the roles.

If the candidate is a wheelchair user for example why should they meet a lower bar than the non-disabled candidates?
It really depends on the disability.

Where possible, provide interview questions in advance to allow reflective applicants to consider their responses.

I've never understood why this isn't standard for all candidates. It would stop people kicking themselves on the way out of the interview as it occurs to them that X thing would have been a great example of a competency rather than Y thing that was all they could come up with in the pressure of the moment.

Yeah I know what you mean..... but than I think it it's easier for people to
Fake it in the interview and not be able to function in work - I've said stupid stuff in interviews as I am dumb :/ and a liability

But, if anything, those who are adept bullshitters are likely to be the best at making stuff up on the spot so will be at an advantage with unseen questions.