So I was reading an article this morning entitled The case against video interviews for training contracts and pupillage written by Law PhD student Elijah Granet. Elijah is making a case for audio interviews to support diversity and inclusion in legal sector recruitment.
The article looks at the fact that COVID-19 has prompted a shift to remote working in nearly every aspect of the legal business including recruitment. It focusses on recruitment for training contract and pupillage interviews. However, the points raised would equally apply to recruitment and video interviews generally. Simply put Elijah makes a case for a move from Video Interviews to Audio-Only Interviews.
However, while I agree that video interviews may be an obstacle to diversity and inclusion in certain circumstances and widen the class divide, the statement that “information conveyed by looking at a candidate should have no place in the hiring process” I feel is misleading. Particularly as interviews would usually be in a face to face context in the first place. The choice by firms of using video interviews and Zoom is because they are trying to replicate the in-person process as closely as possible.
Elijah uses the example:
For example, it notes that an autistic person’s “body language and non-verbal communication may come across as aggressive”, while “being very restless, fidgety, breathing heavily and sweating” can easily be a sign of an undisclosed disability. Equally, eye contact’s “meaning and appropriateness… varies from culture to culture”, rendering it a poor indicator of any information about a witness (or job candidate).
and goes on to state:
The information conveyed by seeing a candidate’s face and upper body has no place in interviews. It is at best, misleading and flawed, and at worst, a conduit for discrimination. There is very little useful information an interviewer can glean from observing the physical reactions of their interviewee.
It is well documented that the interviewing process is imperfect. We can all give examples of unconscious bias (and perhaps even conscious bias) and no-one is immune from this. Proper training and other measures are /should already be in place to overcome unconscious bias generally, and these should be continued. However, to suggest that the solution is to get rid of the visual component seems to me to be a bizarre suggestion.
Yes, the visual component can allow for unconscious bias to arise (and work needs done to overcome this), but the visual component can also be the very thing that helps candidates.
They have the ability to express themselves properly, to be themselves, to build rapport and establish a connection, to build on their confidence, read their audience and adjust accordingly if necessary. It can help interviewers determine whether someone is a good fit (and for interviewees to determine the same). All of which are important factors of an interview. Body language is an important part of how we communicate. Most people from all types of backgrounds use body language as a way to communicate.
An audio-only interview does not help with these elements and at the same time does not eliminate bias. There can still be bias based on accent or how someone speaks and how confidently they speak.
While the writer acknowledges that there should be exceptions where accessibility requires visual contact (such as where a deaf individual requires a sign language interpreter or wishes to lipread). However, they do not consider what this means for the individual.
Not everyone with a disability discloses it.
We know that 66% of barristers and 59% of solicitors and paralegals that we surveyed by Legally Disabled were disabled when they started their training. However, only 1 barrister and 8.5% of solicitors / paralegals were confident to disclose this when they made their application.
As a HOH solicitor I can’t imagine anything worse than an audio interview. I lip read. I need the visual cues. If I can lip-read I know I can cope 90% in a face to face IRL interview, 70–80% in a video conference call and this will drop to below 50% in an audio-only interview.
If we changed to audio-only interviews I would have to disclose and ask for additional support.
If we changed to audio-only someone who is deaf or hard of hearing would have to declare their disability. Put in a request for a video interview (or other reasonable adjustment) and single themselves out. Alternatively, they would struggle along with an audio interview if they didn’t wish to disclose they had a disability.
Yes there are various technological solutions and reasonable adjustments, but many don’t work and firms often don’t know to provide support. It is a stressful and frustrating process. Auto generated subtitles on video conferencing programmes (if available at all) can be fine for generic conversations, but struggle with legal terminology.
Using stats from the Legally Disabled Report — 81% of barristers and 86% of other legal professionals who have requested reasonable adjustments or support say that the process has created stress and anxiety for them.
I am a women, South Asian and I am hard of hearing.
People don’t think that I can’t do my job because I am a women or because I am South Asian. However, when it comes to my disability — they know I have limits in what I can do. It is a constant and exhausting battle to do my job, do it well and show that I can cope and do it just as well as any of my colleagues.
If I had to do an audio-only interview or had to declare my disability — I am not sure I would have had the opportunities that I needed to qualify as a solicitor in the first place. Only after qualifying as a solicitor have I been so open about my disability in the workplace.
Coping in a call in an interview and a high stressed situation is very different to managing a work call where you are in control and running the conversation. An audio interview, assuming I could hear what was being asked in the first place, would not be an accurate reflection of my ability and my capabilities.
I am however privileged in many ways and that does include good broadband. The comments made in the article regarding potential inclusivity issues due to video conferencing correlating to one’s class or location. I do agree that there is an issue here. Good bandwidth may be geographically (for areas with poor broadband coverage) or financially unachievable.
However, practically at the moment this is an issue for a lot of people in the day to day working environment too. We usually cope with a quick conversation and agreement to turn off video on a day to day basis, but we could allow someone to choose a preference, video or audio when setting up the interview but not making one mandatory over the other.
Firms could also offer socially-distanced space in their meeting rooms at the office or serviced office hubs in a variety of locations and travel expenses for candidates who wanted to space or equipment to interview in a more formal environment (and get away from distractions at home).
While it can be argued that there is no information gleaned from seeing a candidate over video conference which can ethically (or, indeed, legally) be used to determine their performance in interviews. I firmly believe visual contact can help individuals and interviewers express themselves better and demonstrate their skills and value better than audio-only (whether you are deaf or hard of hearing or not) and that an audio interview should be one of many options and a personal choice.
Read the article here. You can also find the Legally Disabled report here .
Comments