After having taken the Implicit Association Test, my results indicated a moderate automatic association of “Bad” with Middle Class and “Good” with Upper Middle Class. The IAT is not a direct measure of bias, yet it does expose the way unconscious associations may subtly influence perception and choices. This exercise reminded me that even well meaning people can harbor implicit preferences that guide behavior without awareness. Especially people who consider themselves to be more self aware than most, like myself.
We know that implicit bias can substantially lower both the reliability and validity of selection processes. On the reliability side, unconscious biases can result in variable ratings across raters. Two different people might evaluate the same candidate based on unconscious assumptions about social class, race, or gender, which lowers inter-rater reliability. In terms of validity, bias jeopardizes the accuracy with which the process measures job related competencies. When the evaluators unconsciously associate positive characteristics with a group, they could end up hiring those who “feel right” to them rather than the most competent to do the job, thereby lessening the predictive validity of the hiring decisions.
The most effective strategy for counterbalancing implicit bias is to use structured, logical interviews. Preset questions, pre-defined rating scales anchored in behaviors, and clear evaluation criteria diminish the reliance on subjective impressions. Attempting to cut out the unnecessary illogical emotion in one’s thoughts. Organisations will also do better with regular bias-awareness training and diverse hiring panels that make fair, evidence-based decisions. Understanding and addressing implicit bias is not only a moral imperative but also critical for the development of more reliable, valid, and equitable selection systems.