In the Bertrand and Mullainathan study of name-based discrimination, job applicants with "Black-sounding" names were granted interviews significantly fewer times than those with "White-sounding" names. Speculate on what might happen to a Black applicant who had a "White-sounding" name and was called for an interview. At what point(s) might prejudice eliminate the applicant from the selection process? What benefit(s) might accrue to such an applicant from being called for the interview? What are specific actions that organizations might do to reduce the likelihood of name-based discrimination in the selection process? How would they know if these steps were working?
The Bertrand and Mullainathan study suggests that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market. The study indicates that white names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews than the blacks. The study was also able to ensure to a large extent that the discrimination was due to the name and not due to any other factor .
At what point(s) might prejudice eliminate the applicant from the selection process?
Assuming that the black applicant who has a white sounding name is called for the interview . The prejudice would be maximum in the first 30 minutes , because of the influence of personal biases, first impressions and stereo typing. It is said that prejudices start to dissipate during an interview, after the first 30 minutes .
Prejudice may eliminate the applicant , at the following points :
1. At the start of the interview, the minute the interviewer sets eyes on him especially if the interviewer is white.
2. During the first 5 minutes, when the 'body language' and accent of the applicant sends a ' black' signal .
3. If the locality of the applicant comes up during the interview , the reply could send a negative signal.
4. If the family ...
The expert determines how to manage diversity in organizations.