Bias in manager position staffing process

Statement

At their session held on March 25, 2020, the members of the CFPM analyzed a complaint regarding a staffing process for a management position related to the following allegation:

THERE WAS A BIAS IN THE STAFFING PROCESS BECAUSE THE APPOINTED PERSON DID NOT MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE JOB POSTING.

In order to fully understand the nature of the complainant’s allegation, the Commission carefully gathered his¹ testimony and went over the elements contained in his complaint form, as well as any other relevant facts that he wished to bring to its attention. 

Investigation Methodology

• A meeting with the complainant was held to determine the specifics of the complaint, analyze its admissibility and study the complaint thoroughly. 
• Interviews with the witnesses identified by the complainant were then held to obtain their version of the facts. This was done with the consent of the complainant.
• The CFPM interviewed other witnesses related to the content of the complaint.
• All parties met or interviewed were informed of the confidentiality of the process and agreed to abide thereby.
• A review of the documentary evidence was also conducted. 
• The investigative process, including meetings or telephone interviews, analysis of testimonies and documentation, and conclusions, was then presented during a board meeting with CFPM members. 

Facts

• By rigorously analyzing all the steps of the staffing process, the Commission came to the conclusion that the employee who is the subject of the complaint was considered for the process although he did not meet all the requirements.
• The analysis of the candidates’ submissions showed that some candidates that met the requirements in a demonstrable way were not considered for the subsequent steps of the process.
• At the end of the staffing process, the appointment was made to a permanent management position.
• Regarding the previous facts, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant’s allegation is well-founded and that the decision to include the appointed employee in the process is inequitable towards the other applicants who meet all the required qualifications for the position.

Conclusion

After an analysis of all the facts brought to their attention, the CFPM members found that the complainant's allegation was well-founded. A certain number of worrying aspects were communicated to the persons concerned with the staffing process.

[1] Note: The use of the masculine gender includes the feminine and is employed to ensure conidentiality of the complainant as well as to facilitate reading.