CIICPD 2023

The first category of the participant remarks referring to the halo effect were realisations of existing personal prejudices. Individual testimonies ranged from admitting yielding to the first impressions, to confessing refusal of a candidate or colleague based on their appearance, attitudes, or behaviours. One of them, for example, recalled refusing a candidate in the past based on a first impression from an email in which the candidate disclosed “working in his previous position for only a few months” . The manager realised that it was the frequency of changing jobs that created an impression of “an unreliable candidate” , who thus did not get a chance to present themselves in person. Many of the managers, even though admitting being influenced by the halo effect, came to make realisations or self-reflect upon learning the principles of bias in the workshop. One of them admitted knowingly to “unfortunately doing it wrong” when assessing people “simply by appearance” . A male manager raised the problem of gender inequality when admitting fighting his first impressions when young women come for an interview. While “pregnancy” is reportedly “always the first that comes to his mind” , he nonetheless found these ideas to be “not entirely fair” and claimed to “try to fight the ideas back” . Another one defended his tendency to judge people based on a person’s overt opinions by the result-oriented demands and pressures of his job. Pointing out the quantity and deadlines of expected outcomes that require quick decisions and actions, he found the halo effect as a natural reaction saving time and energy within the complexity of other tasks, and thus one of those being “the most difficult to get rid of ” . He, as well as some others, also agreed on their “admiration for anyone” who would be able to eliminate quick judgements from their practice. The ability to overcome first hand prejudices was also mentioned in the context of the managers’ “abilities to change their opinion” the moment they realise they made a mistake, and in the context of their willingness to change their attitudes relative to “how long it would take and how much effort it would mean” . Stories providing evidence of conscious efforts to avoid biased decisions then represented the second category of the participant contributions, bringing repetitive recollections from recruitment or first encounters with their colleagues. The managers brought about varied situations when their “first impression turned to be false” which, as they report, was only “proved after the colleague was hired” . For example, one of the managers recalled a candidate whom, in his own words, he first assessed like “a total idiot quote unquote” , explaining the candidate created an impression of a low intellectual capacity based on his shabby appearance. The candidate, however, finally turned out to be “very smart, just only visually different” . Another participant confessed a tendency to avoid socialising with colleagues “she didn’t like” , but admitted that in many cases, many of them “turned to be very pleasant fellows” upon meeting them. The testimony below, in addition, describes a manager’s mental exercises aimed at self-regulating personal ideas and actions which they have been applying as conscious efforts to avoid wrong judgements of people: I always talk to myself, I call it an inner discussion, which I lead with myself. I tell myself, wait until the person introduces themselves to you, after they tell something about themselves. According to the situation or after they do something, then you will form your opinion. This is, I think, only a small help, to tell myself to wait.

92