https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6881-8269
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This study provides evidence from a large-scale, long-lasting, multi-faceted pilot with anonymized application procedures (AAP) in a Dutch city in 2016–2017. We evaluate effects of AAP on interview and hiring rates, compare two methods of anonymizing, and analyze attitudes related to AAP among hiring managers, applicants and the general public. Results show that minority applicants were relatively more likely to be invited for an interview after AAP were introduced. This difference was significant for applicants from the largest non-Western minority groups. Minority applicants’ hiring rates also improved, though only significantly so when comparing 2016 (not 2017) with the reference period (2015). Moreover, minority applicants, especially from the largest non-Western groups, were more likely to be invited when standardized anonymous application forms were used than when applications were manually anonymized. Finally, applicants and the general public were much more positive about AAP than managers. Many managers saw no need for AAP; they were often unconvinced that discrimination occurs in their organization. We discuss these results in light of the scarce and mixed evidence on AAP effectiveness, and reflect on important insights regarding conditions under which AAP can be implemented successfully and practical implications uncovered by our analyses of different actors’ views.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 These studies found evidence of positive discrimination in the non-anonymized conditions. Hence, anonymizing meant that positive discrimination was no longer possible, whilst it was in the non-anonymized procedures.
2 Krause, Rinne, and Zimmermann (Citation2012a) consist of 9 separate pilots. Methods of anonymizing vary between but not within these separate tests.
3 Based on further positive evaluations, the municipality continues to use AAP as their standard procedure.
4 Regional unemployment decreased from 8.7% in 2015 to 6.3% in 2017, which could potentially cause a minor drop in discrimination.
5 Applicants could still upload a résumé and application letter. These were not used to select candidates for an interview, but were made available after this initial selection.
6 For 2015 and 2016, we used data from a research report by Motivaction (Citation2016). For comparability, we applied the same procedures to assess applicants’ migrant background.
7 One item captured the overall opinion toward AAP (see ). The other three items covered specific aspects of AAP: whether AAP are considered a good tool to create equal chances on the labor market; whether they can prevent discrimination; whether respondents regard AAP as ultimately useless, because during the interview the identity of the applicant will be revealed.
8 Significance levels were calculated using logistic regressions comparing relative probabilities of majority and minority applicants.
9 The relative invitation rate for an interview for majority versus minority applicants was 1.72 with the manual AAP method and 1.29 with standardized online forms. For TMSA applicants the difference was larger, with relative invitation rates of 2.35 and 1.20.
10 There is remarkable consensus among the general public about the perceived influence of these personal characteristics during selection. We found no significant differences between men and women regarding the perceived influence of gender, and no significant differences between age groups and people with or without migrant background regarding the perceived influence of applicants’ age and migrant origin respectively.