Essential Guide

Browse Sections


This content is part of the Essential Guide: The essential guide to managing HR technology trends
Evaluate Weigh the pros and cons of technologies, products and projects you are considering.

Experts lack consensus on discrimination risks of video interviewing

When used too early in the hiring process, video can lead to discrimination based on race, age or sex, but it can have positive benefits with the right guidelines in place.

When human resources and hiring managers first started using video around a decade ago for recruiting and interviewing, questions began to arise about whether the technology encouraged discrimination in the hiring process.

Today, more and more companies are looking to interview candidates via HR video to save money and make the hiring process more efficient. However, many of these firms are still concerned about the potential for discrimination that could stem from video interviewing.

"It is oftentimes one of the first questions that we receive from a potential client -- and we work with many of the world's largest employers: Anheuser-Busch InBev, Disney, Humana, Samsung, Allstate, Proctor & Gamble," said Kurt Heikkinen, CEO of Montage Talent, a vendor based in Delafield, Wisc., that offers voice and video interviewing tools.

When Montage works through evaluations with its clients, those companies will often engage their compliance teams because of considerations surrounding fair practices in hiring and compliance with regulations of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"Our position absolutely is that through the use of Montage, we help clients better comply with the requirements related to nondiscrimination," Heikkinen said. "And we actually help them enhance their diversity goals and initiatives from a recruiting strategy standpoint."

HR video discrimination may be more fear than reality

Kyle Lagunas, an analyst at IDC, based in Framingham, Mass., agreed there is fear among companies about the potential for bias and discrimination from the use of video interviewing in the hiring process.

There may be inherent risk that someone might discriminate because a candidate is not like them.
Kyle Lagunasanalyst, IDC

However, despite the fear, Lagunas said he hasn't seen any actual cases where such discrimination has been documented or is anything more than just a perceived risk.

"The reason is because it is just so new and the buyers for these systems are HR leaders and, traditionally, the HR role, in large part, has been to mitigate risk with compliance and things of that nature," he said.

The bigger risk from video interviewing is going to be inherent in a company's hiring culture, according to Lagunas.

"If you see people who have a tendency to hire like people, not just in terms of skin color or ethnicity, but who have similar personalities, similar backgrounds like they went to the same school or they grew up in the same town," he said, "within that there may be inherent risk that someone might discriminate because a candidate is not like them."

Heikkinen pointed out that it's important to distinguish between a video resume and a structured interview process supported by video interviewing.

"The industry has indeed rejected video resumes, which we understand to be an unsolicited submission from a candidate for a position using video," he said. "What we offer is a platform that helps an employer-driven process."

Montage offers a suite of applications, one of which is on-demand, or asynchronous, interviewing. This allows the employer to invite a candidate to participate in a very structured manner using the employer's interview guides and standards to ensure that every candidate is following a consistent standard for interviewing.

Such an approach reduces the potential for discrimination because the hiring manager receives guidance on the purpose of the questions each candidate is asked and on how to evaluate the answers, Heikkinen said.

Lagunas concurred that interview guides are important tools that can help to discourage discrimination.

"A company can provide its hiring managers with a list of things to look for and give them guidance on what they should be evaluating," he said.

Juli Smith, president of The Smith Consulting Group LLC, an executive-search firm based in Jackson, Mich., said her company is trying to implement video interviewing for its clients because the consensus is that it will be more, rather than less, inclusive.

"Oftentimes, our clients don't get enough of the candidate's real experience, and by recording a short video interview introduction of the candidate with resources like HireVue, we believe this can give a more accurate representation of the candidate than just submitting a resume," she said.

If a hiring manager is going to discriminate based on a person's race or age in an HR video interview, the same would hold true for a face-to-face interview, Smith said.

"I recruit in a very male-dominated industry. I recruit primarily civil engineers and consulting engineers and MEP [mechanical, electrical and plumbing]," she said. "If you have a very sharp professional female, a very sharp professional African-American, Asian, whatever race, and that person comes across very well in the video interview, I think it's going to include them versus [exclude] them, which might happen with just a regular resume."

Smith said her company is trying to determine how to implement small video resumes -- three-to-five question short video clips that give client companies more depth and breadth about a candidate than would be found in a paper resume.

Some question whether video hiring is worth the risks

Bill Docherty, senior vice president of product management at SumTotal Systems LLC, an HR software vendor based in Gainesville, Fla., doesn't think that using video early in the hiring process is a good idea.

Although he said he doesn't have any definitive evidence from customers to bolster the notion that using video technology fosters some type of discrimination, his opinion is that it's human nature for people to discriminate.

"What should be the most concerning thing is that these technologies are typically being used very early on in the interview process when [companies] are trying to do it at scale," he said. "In those cases, you have scenarios where candidates have not even really been able to make a good first impression."

If a company was using phone screening early in the process, the hiring manager wouldn't have visual insight into a candidate.

"The person's appearance and lot of other factors wouldn't play into the decision-making and the candidate would be [able to] move forward," Docherty said. "At least, at that point, the person is getting through two or three rounds of phone-based interviews and has made, in many cases, a positive impression. So, at the point of the face-to-face interviews, there's already a preconceived notion of this person's abilities. You really start to lose that if you're going to use video interviewing at the front end of the process."

For Kevin Mulcahy, a partner at Future Workplace LLC, an HR executive network and research firm based in New York, the use of video in the hiring process boils down to what a company is really testing with video and how relevant it is to the role.

"It's a medium that not a lot of people are comfortable with yet," he said.

For example, people over the age of 30 tend to shy away from using video and are more self-conscious about how they come across, according to Mulcahy, who is also co-host of The Future Workplace Network, a membership community for HR executives. They often look at the wrong part of the screen because they're just not as familiar with using video as people under 30, he said.

On that basis, if hiring managers are judging performance and comfort and competency on the video then there's a danger of discriminating against older people who are not as comfortable with the medium, Mulcahy said.

"Then the [interviewer] could say, 'Oh, let me extrapolate, they probably aren't as good at other technologies either.' I think there is a high possibility there for discrimination. And age discrimination is the biggest risk I see," he said.

Next Steps

Learn how video is being used in HR

Read about HireVue and Match-Click video recruitment tools

See how the Red Sox use video recruitment

Dig Deeper on Employee recruitment software

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

Do HR video hiring practices present serious discrimination risks? Why or why not?
Video Interviewing Technology doesn't discriminate - people do. The issue of bias and discrimination is an internal issue that employers need to wrestle with. Whether you interview people via telephone, video or in person, or just look at their CV, you'll pick up clues as to their gender, age, race, social standing etc and it will affect your judgement of them.We would recommend unconscious bias training for interviewers, and also put in place an objective assessment framework with positive and negative indicators for each question that you ask, and force the assessor to place a score for each answer given. That reduces subjectivity.

Video interviews have two advantages when it comes to bias: 1) every candidate has exactly the same experience and 2) you have an audit trail and recording, as opposed to someone's scribbled notes.

Video interviewing actually reduces the impact of bias on hiring decisions.  We published a white paper on unconscious bias and how video interviewing helps.

i would suggest the same type format as "the voice", the identified, blind interview.  you do not get to see the person however you will hear them respond to your question almost immediately (which would somewhat negate someone who has others there to coach/cheat for them with the responses) which is akin to that person being in a room with the interviewers. 

I believe this would help deter various types of discrimination that come with face-to-face interviews since they are basing their consideration on the same question/answer responses, it is taped, and there is relatively little wiggle room to say that one person was better based upon some bias, you are focusing on the capability not the physical appearance. 

As the HR Director for a public school district, I have over sixty hiring administrators and before we implemented one-way video interviewing I had no idea of the nature of the interview questions my hiring administrators were asking during screening interviews. After implementing one-way video interviewing, my hiring administrators must choose questions from an approved bank of interview questions that have been vetted by our legal firm. No off-the-cuff follow up questions or small talk occurs, which is often where an illegal question is posed to a candidate. Also, the vast majority of employment discrimination cases are filed AFTER you try to terminate a poor employee. Making better hires in the first place reduces the likelihood of having to terminate a poor employee and risk the discrimination and retaliation suit that the former employee files because he/she was fired. Using video interviewing you can grant a screening interview to every applicant and the proof of their performance is preserved on video for EEOC compliance reasons. Do you know the types of questions your hiring officials are asking and do you keep interview records for two years as required by the EEOC? If not, you are putting your employer much more at risk than the perceived risk that many people have about video interviewing. Based on my experience, video interviewing actually serves as a deterrent to discrimination cases because it eliminates the complainant's word against the defendant's word...the quality of the answers from the person who was ultimately hired and the assessment scores that person received from independent reviewers is powerful evidence to refute any discrimination claims. The potential complainant knows his/her answers were recorded and might not actually compare as well with the answers from the person who ultimately got the job. Ultimately, video interviewing is simple one tool to help an organization screen more candidates in less time in order to hire the best person for the job. When is the last time a company hired an employee without ever seeing the person before making a job offer? If the organizational culture or personal bias of the hiring official is discriminatory in nature, it will show up regardless of whether the candidate was screened with a video interview or an onsite interview. As one person commented, video interviewing technology does not discriminate...people do. Just as a knife in the hands of a chef is a culinary tool, a knife in the hands of a criminal is a deadly weapon.
Just gonna throw it out there, what if you’re deaf and don’t speak in a video interview. That makes video interviews 100% discriminatory against deaf people. That’s not even going down the rabbit hole of other disabilities, where people can have ticks, and various speaking problems, which can be explained to a person, but cannot be explained in a one way video interview. Therefore the system is intrinsically discriminatory, and what’s worse is it will be impossible to separate this type of discrimination from the system because of how the system works.
This is primarily the reason why I believe the "blind" interview is a better option regarding this subject.  On the majority, if not all, hiring forms a request regarding disabilities are made upfront and therefore the hearing impaired can have an interpreter or some other mechanism available on both sides to coordinate communication.  
Wouldn't the outcome be the same if a deaf person was invited to an in-person interview and did not speak? With a one-way video interview, the questions are written in text on the screen for the person the read before answering. A candidate with this type of disability could use sign language to communicate his/her responses.  The recorded responses could then be shared via video link with any sign language interpreter who could provide a written or verbal transcript of the candidate's responses for the interview team to review. Pre-recorded video interviews are also more convenient for people with physical disabilities where traveling to the interview site is much more difficult than recording their responses to questions from their home computer or smartphone. If the culture of a company is to discriminate against people with disabilities then it does not matter whether the person completes a video interview or an in-person interview.  Video interviews allow employers to grant interviews to more applicants than they could using traditional on-site interviews meaning those with little professional experience can still have shots at the job. In terms of racial discrimination, research shows minority applicants prefer being screened with a video interview versus their paper resume because their video responses eliminate any internal biases about language barriers on the recruiter's part.  The video will show if the candidate can communicate clearly or not. Having used video interviews for about five years now, I'm convinced it helps employers learn more about more applicants and to make better hiring decisions.
What happens to the video after it has served its purpose? I believe it’s an infringement on PRIVACY. Perhaps companies should actually do their job by actually recruiting and having conversations with candidates rather than coming up with unnatural formulas that find candidates using a binary code. How lazy do you have to be? Recruiting and hiring right is the only way a company is going to survive.