In the textile field, there is a way of proceeding or cutting following an oblique direction with respect to the main weft of the fabric which in Provence is called “biais”.

Let's not say anything else to avoid taking the conversation elsewhere.

That practice must have seemed so evocative to some English-speaking psychologists – it is difficult to imagine how their professional interests could have approached the methodologies of such a distant sector – that they decided to add the term to their lexicon (partially skimmed of the “i”) as a perfect metaphor for what often happens in our minds during decision-making processes: cognitive “biases”, significantly explored only since the 1970s, especially by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, are the prejudices that determine deviations from rationality in opinions, judgments and, therefore, decisions.

But what do we care about… And instead there should be… because the hiring process is often undermined by involuntary biases – both positive and negative – that can alter the perception of the qualities of the candidates, making the selection task more difficult. And there is no need to resent it, because biases are formed at an unconscious level and no human being is totally immune to them. Not even those who know them all (and there are really a lot). A bit like when you drink water after eating artichokes. You know very well that the water is, let's say, “tasteless” and that the sweetness you perceive is due to substances contained in artichokes that trick the taste buds. Yet at that moment the brain tells you that the water is sweet.

Assessment biases are less obvious cognitive distortions that can influence decisions to the point of disadvantaging deserving candidates whose talent, for various reasons, could be underestimated. The opposite can also happen. Similarity bias, for example, can create an unjustified preference for candidates who share similarities with the recruiter in terms of background, interests or other personal characteristics. And there are even more insidious ones, such as confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out, interpret or give weight to information that confirms one’s pre-existing expectations. A very realistic example of the “trick” that biases can play in evaluation is the film “The Jurors” (1957). Even if you haven’t seen it, the title gives you an idea of what we’re talking about.

As mentioned, when it comes to slip-ups of this type, there are no anti-banana peel soles. And apart from being careful where you put your feet – that is, knowing how biases work and learning to recognize them – there is little else to do. Unless you decide to change your approach. In the recruitment dimension, in fact, an innovative way that can really make a difference is to adopt assessment tools that use gamification to make recruitment fairer and more impartial.

Since we like to draw on cinematic culture, in the film “The Imitation Game” (2014), based on the true story of Alan Turing and his team during the Second World War, the protagonist selects the members of his team through a complicated crossword puzzle (a game!), looking for people with unique skills, despite the resistance of military leaders, unknowingly misled by bias.

The “game”, so to speak, works perfectly in the real dimension too. And the use of tools that introduce playful elements into assessment processes can be a powerful antidote against bias. Our Web InBasket and Business Game, for example, are games designed to bring out and focus the actual skills and abilities of candidates, leaving irrelevant characteristics out of the picture.

This is crucial, because more objective selection leads to more diverse teams. And diversity in the company promotes creativity and innovation, as highlighted by McKinsey & Company in their report “Diversity Wins” (2020). The study shows that companies with greater gender and ethnic diversity significantly outperform their competitors in terms of performance.

Before we wrap up, let's take a small, necessary step back. Because it's easy to blame recruiters. But what about candidates? They too can develop prepackaged perceptions about the HR they find in front of them, based on past experiences or stereotypes. And no matter how you look at it, the result is always the same. Assessment games minimize this effect, focusing the interaction on objective activities and not on dialogues potentially loaded with prejudice.

We can already see it now, in the future of recruitment there will be an increasing use of gamification to ensure selection processes are always fruitful. Companies like Google and P&G are already doing it, achieving positive results in terms of reducing bias and improving the quality of hiring.

In conclusion, gamification offers a unique opportunity to revolutionize this sector, eliminating unconscious bias and promoting a more inclusive corporate culture. And companies that adopt this approach not only aim to improve their hiring processes but actively contribute to the creation of a fair and stimulating work environment.