Use structured assessment criteria, standardised questions, and objective scoring systems whilst focusing on job-relevant behaviours and documenting specific performance examples rather than subjective impressions. Implement consistent evaluation processes that reduce personal preference influence on hiring decisions.
Common misunderstanding: Thinking good intentions prevent bias
Many managers believe they treat all candidates fairly just because they mean to be fair. But without proper systems in place, personal preferences still affect hiring decisions.
Let's say you are interviewing bartender candidates and notice you naturally warm to people who share your interests, whilst being stricter with candidates who seem different from you, even though both groups show similar service skills.
Common misunderstanding: Only watching for obvious discrimination
Some managers think bias only means treating people differently based on age, gender, or race. They miss subtle preferences for candidates who speak like them, share similar backgrounds, or have familiar personalities.
Let's say you are unconsciously favouring candidates who went to similar schools or have accents like yours, whilst being less impressed by equally skilled candidates who communicate differently or come from different backgrounds.
Implement consistent interview processes, multiple evaluator perspectives, and clear performance benchmarks whilst separating assessment phases and avoiding first impression decisions based on appearance or background. Focus evaluation on service delivery capability and job-relevant competencies only.
Common misunderstanding: Making decisions alone
Some managers interview and assess candidates by themselves, not realising their personal preferences affect their judgement. Getting opinions from other team members helps spot candidates' real strengths and weaknesses.
Let's say you are the only person evaluating bartender candidates, and you consistently rate talkative candidates higher because you prefer chatty people, missing that some quieter candidates actually provide better customer service.
Common misunderstanding: Deciding within the first few minutes
Some managers form strong opinions about candidates in the first few minutes of meeting them and then only notice things that support that first impression. This means they miss important information about the candidate's real abilities.
Let's say you are put off by a candidate's nervous handshake and spend the rest of the interview noticing their hesitation, whilst missing their excellent drink preparation skills and thoughtful customer service responses.
Provide identical trial tasks, consistent time allocations, and standardised assessment criteria whilst reviewing evaluation patterns for potential bias and focusing on service competency over cultural similarity. Document assessment rationale with specific performance examples for all candidates.
Common misunderstanding: Giving different candidates different experiences
Some managers change how they run interviews between candidates without thinking about it - being more relaxed with some, asking easier questions to others, or giving different amounts of time for trials.
Let's say you are more chatty and helpful with candidates you initially like, whilst being more formal and serious with others, creating different interview experiences that affect how well each person can show their abilities.
Common misunderstanding: Confusing team fit with personal similarity
Some managers think 'cultural fit' means hiring people similar to themselves or current staff, rather than people who can work well with the team and serve customers excellently, regardless of their personal background.
Let's say you are rejecting a skilled candidate because they're quieter than your current team, even though they demonstrate excellent teamwork and customer service abilities that would actually strengthen your bar's service quality.