JurnalPost.com - On many campuses, the term “insider track” is often used as a joke during new member recruitment for student organizations. Friends of the chairperson or core committee members often breeze through, while strategic positions continue to rotate within the same social circle. Opportunities to hold key roles seem reserved for a select few, while other applicants are left without any explanation as to why they were not chosen.
Yet, organizations require high integrity. If integrity is lacking, how can members and the broader student body trust the organization?
When decisions are based on friendships or proximity to certain individuals, this practice is known as favoritism orcronyism. This means an individual is prioritized because of their close relationship with certain parties, rather than solely due to their skills or qualifications.
When personal closeness influences decision-making, aconflict of interestarises. Members who join through the “insider track” may not necessarily be joining for the benefit of the organization or the student body. They might have their own motives, ranging from financial gain to enhancing their personal reputation.
This condition can harm many parties. Candidates with relevant skills lose out on opportunities, while other members begin to doubt the objectivity of the leadership in making decisions.
If this persists, members may conclude that being close to the right people is more important than demonstrating competence. Such a mindset is detrimental if carried into the professional world or government, as it can open doors to collusion and nepotism.
In organizations where members know each other, personal closeness is indeed difficult to avoid. However, that closeness should not influence every decision. The key lies in a standardized, independently assessed, transparent, and periodically evaluated selection system.
1. Standardizing the Interview Process
The first step is to implement structured interviews, where all candidates receive the same questions and evaluation criteria, and are assessed using a rubric agreed upon before the selection begins (Bergelson et al., 2022).
According to Black et al. (2018, as cited in Bergelson et al., 2022), who focused their research on resident doctor selection interviews, questions can cover two areas.
First, candidate experience, such as “Tell us about a time you experienced conflict within a team.” Second, hypothetical situations, for example, “What would you do if two divisions were competing for the same budget?”
Research by Schmidt and Hunter (1998) shows that structured interviews are more accurate in predicting performance compared to unstructured ones.
Bias can also be reduced by omitting irrelevant information, such as photos or hobbies, during the document screening phase (Bergelson et al., 2022).
For student organizations where members know each other, this method is not always easy to implement. However, it remains a necessary step to help maintain objectivity in assessment.
2. Involving Multiple Interviewers
Good standards can lose their effectiveness when interviewers have personal relationships with candidates.
Personal relationships can create ahalo bias, where an interviewer ignores information that contradicts their positive view of a candidate.
A similar issue can occur when an interviewer holds ahorn bias. Positive bias can benefit a candidate, while negative bias can unfairly disadvantage them.
Therefore, the recruitment process needs to involve multiple interviewers to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest.
The influence of personal bias can be mitigated, and candidate scores become more consistent. The panel of interviewers should remain the same for all candidates so that discrepancies in assessment do not widen (Bergelson et al., 2022).
Each interviewer should also disclose to the organization if they have a close relationship with a candidate, such as being roommates or classmates. In such cases, the candidate can be interviewed by other panel members.
This rule is simple, but it directly addresses the root of conflicts of interest.
Within a group or panel,conformity biascan also occur, where the opinion of the majority or a more dominant member influences the assessment of others (Bergelson et al., 2022).
Therefore, each interviewer should record their scores individually before discussing and consolidating the results with other interviewers.
This step also ensures that selection decisions do not rely solely on the chairperson or a single core committee member.
3. An Open and Transparent Selection Process
Suspicion usually arises because the selection process is conducted behind closed doors.
In procedural justice theory regarding selection, Gilliland (1993, as cited in Truxillo et al., 2017) formulated ten rules used by applicants to judge the fairness of a selection process. Some of these include consistency of treatment, feedback, and the rationale behind decisions.
Therefore, evaluation criteria, selection stages, and announcement schedules should be communicated as soon as registration opens.
This allows candidates to understand the aspects being assessed and prepare themselves fairly. Both successful and unsuccessful applicants should receive a brief explanation and feedback.
According to Valentine et al. (2021), clear and meaningful feedback is considered essential for creating fair decisions.
Feedback does not need to be lengthy. Two or three sentences regarding aspects to maintain or improve are sufficient.
Such feedback makes the decision feel more reasonable, rather than simply stating “you were not selected” without providing a reason.
Research summarized by Truxillo et al. (2017) shows that the perception of a fair process is linked to an applicant's willingness to recommend the organization to others.
Explaining selection procedures can also improve perceptions of fairness, even if the impact in some studies is relatively small.
Although this research focuses on the context of job applicants, the principles remain relevant to the recruitment process in student organizations.
4. Evaluation After the Selection Process
A good selection process needs to be reviewed once all stages are complete.
Bergelson et al. (2022) noted several common assessment errors, such as interviewers giving scores that are too high or too low to all candidates.
The research also emphasizes the importance of training and feedback for assessors.
After the selection process concludes, the committee can review whether scores between interviewers were consistent and whether there were any complaints from participants.
The results of the evaluation are then recorded as material for improvement for the next recruitment period.
If odd patterns are found, for example, if scores from one assessor are consistently much higher for certain candidates, those patterns need to be reviewed and corrected through an objective evaluation mechanism.
Eliminating personal closeness entirely is impossible and unnecessary. What must be maintained is ensuring that such closeness does not become the deciding factor in selection results.
Structured interviews, independent assessors, an open process, and periodic evaluations can help ensure that every selection decision is accountable.
Student organizations are places of learning before entering the professional world and government.
Through fair selection, every member can understand that integrity is one of the primary foundations of an organization. This value is expected to become part of the mentality they carry when they eventually enter the workforce or society.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response