Merit-based Hiring Isn't Just A Slogan: How To Reduce Bias Without Slowing Down Your Hiring

By Author: Base Camp Recruitment Singapore
Total Articles: 690
Comment this article

Introduction
Every hiring manager believes they make merit-based decisions. They consider qualifications, experience, and fit. But what they don't see—because it's unconscious—is how small, unrelated details shape their choices long before they evaluate actual skills. A candidate's name, their university, a shared hobby with the interviewer—these trigger snap judgments that override the facts. Many organisations still don’t have consistent systems to catch this, which means bias becomes baked into hiring decisions at scale.
The good news? Merit-based hiring isn't impossible. It's just not accidental. It requires structure, intention, and tools. And when done properly, it doesn't slow hiring down—it speeds it up.
Note: Written based on practical hiring experience in Singapore and Asia by Base Camp Recruitment.

Why "Trusting Your Gut" Costs More Than You Think
Our brains are wired for mental shortcuts. Historically, these shortcuts kept us safe and helped us make quick decisions. In modern hiring, they do the opposite.
The ...
... most common hiring biases include:

* Confirmation bias: You form an initial impression of a candidate, then actively seek information that confirms it—while ignoring contradictory evidence.

* Halo effect: One strong credential (like a prestigious university degree) makes you overlook weaker areas. You assume someone is excellent across the board based on a single positive trait.

* Affinity bias: You favour candidates who remind you of yourself—similar background, interests, even communication style. It feels like chemistry, but it's homogeneity.

* Contrast effect: You judge candidates against each other rather than against the job requirements, which means a mediocre candidate looks great after interviewing a weak one.
The financial stakes are real. Research shows a single bad hire costs roughly 30% of an employee's annual salary when you factor in lost productivity, turnover, and replacement hiring. A 2024 LinkedIn study found that 67% of recruiters admit hiring mistakes are more likely when decisions are rushed or made without structure.
But here's the irony: unstructured hiring feels fast. It's not. It just appears fast until you count the cost of a bad fit four months later.

The Singapore Context: Fair Consideration Framework and Beyond
In Singapore, merit-based hiring isn't just good practice—it's a regulatory requirement. The Ministry of Manpower's Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) explicitly requires employers to consider candidates fairly based on merit, regardless of nationality, age, or other non-job-related factors. All companies must advertise vacancies on MyCareersFuture for at least 14 days and demonstrate that they've fairly evaluated local candidates before hiring foreign professionals.
But the FCF is about more than compliance. It reflects a broader shift across Asia-Pacific organisations toward inclusive, skills-based hiring. Research shows 90% of APAC employers now view skills-related initiatives as essential to their workforce strategy. Yet Singapore's own workplace data tells us there's a gap between stated values and practice: one in three employees reported experiencing discrimination at work in 2024, up from 25% in 2023.
This suggests that knowing what merit-based hiring is doesn't automatically make it happen. It requires systems.
How Structured Processes Actually Speed Up Hiring
Organisations often assume that adding structure slows hiring down. It's the opposite. Here's why:
Structured hiring reduces decision fatigue. When you have clear criteria for every role, interviewers don't waste time debating whether a candidate is "good enough." They evaluate against a standard. This cuts interview cycles by up to 50%, according to research from companies like Netflix and Airbnb that overhauled their processes.
Blind screening removes non-job-related noise. By redacting names, universities, and other personal identifiers from early screening, you force evaluators to focus on skills and experience. Studies show candidates with "white-sounding names" receive 75% more interview callbacks than equally qualified candidates with Asian names on otherwise identical resumes. Blind screening can reduce the impact of these signals at the earliest stage.
Standardised interviews make decisions faster. When every candidate answers the same questions in the same order and is scored against the same rubric, comparison is straightforward. You're not trying to remember how Candidate A answered question X versus how Candidate B answered a different question Y. The data is consistent, which makes deciding between finalists faster and more defensible.
Evidence-based research suggests that data-driven or algorithm-supported selection can outperform human judgment by at least 25% in many hiring contexts, especially when there are large candidate pools and consistent performance signals.
Building a Fair Hiring Process: Four Practical Moves
1. Define Success Before You Hire (Not After)

Start with your strongest hire in a similar role. What makes them exceptional? Not their degree or their previous company—what are they doing that drives results? Identify 8 to 10 success factors (skills, behaviours, or characteristics) that genuinely predict performance in the role.

This sounds basic, but most organisations skip this step. They post a job description that's a wish list, then wonder why interviews feel aimless. When you're clear on what success looks like before candidates apply, you have a measuring stick for every evaluation decision.

Why this matters for speed: Vague criteria lead to long deliberations. Clear criteria lead to quick decisions.
2. Anonymise Applications at First Pass

Before a human ever reviews a resume, remove names, universities, graduation years, photos, and other personal identifiers. Keep skills, experience, achievements, and measurable outcomes.

Use software to do this (manual redaction introduces error). Then, run initial screening against your success criteria. This first pass eliminates non-job-related bias immediately and forces evaluators to focus on job-relevant factors.

You don't need to anonymise the entire process—just the early stages. Once you've created a shortlist based on skills, candidates' identities naturally come back into play during interviews. But by then, you've already eliminated the most dangerous moment for bias.

Why this matters for fairness: Hiring managers often aren't aware of their own biases. Blind screening removes the opportunity to act on them.
3. Use Structured Interviews with Consistent Scoring

Design a set of 6 to 8 questions that directly test your success factors. Ask every candidate the same questions in the same order. Score each response on a predefined scale (e.g., 1 to 5 against specific competency levels).

Behavioural questions work best here: "Describe a time you had to handle conflicting priorities. What did you do?" This approach surfaces how candidates actually think and act—not how well they guess what you want to hear.

Train your interviewers on the scoring rubric beforehand, so they understand what a "3" versus a "5" looks like. This consistency is where the magic happens. It removes the influence of charisma, rapport, or whether the interviewer had a good morning.

Why this matters for speed: Structured interviews cut interview duration by reducing follow-up questions and false tangents. Everyone knows what they're assessing, so the conversation stays focused.
4. Use a Diverse Hiring Panel (and Hold Them Accountable)

One interviewer's bias is one person's limitation. Two interviewers' aligned bias is a pattern you might not catch. A diverse panel—in background, experience, and thinking style—flags assumptions and balances out individual blind spots.

Crucially, debrief as a panel using your scoring rubric, not impressions. "I gave her a 4 on problem-solving because she explained her approach, considered two options, and explained trade-offs" is objective. "She seemed really sharp" is not.

Document these decisions. This serves two purposes: it creates accountability (people think harder when they have to write it down), and it gives you data to audit your own fairness over time. Are certain groups consistently scoring higher or lower? That's a signal to adjust your questions or your criteria.
Addressing the "But That Takes Time" Objection
Yes, designing these systems requires upfront investment. But the payoff is enormous. Companies that implement structured hiring report:
* Faster hiring cycles: 2 to 4 weeks shorter, on average.

* Better retention: Hires made against clear criteria tend to stay longer because they're genuinely fit for the role.

* Reduced legal risk: Documented, fair processes are defensible if hiring decisions are ever challenged.

* Stronger employer brand: Candidates who experience a fair, structured process are more likely to accept offers (research shows a 38% uplift) and to refer others—even if they don't get the job.

The real cost of not doing this is hidden. It's the turnover rate that's slightly higher than the industry average. It's the retention data showing women or minorities leave at higher rates (which often signals they didn't feel fairly treated in hiring). It's the diversity you aimed for but never achieved because your process unconsciously filtered certain groups out at early stages.
Starting Small: Where to Begin
You don't need to overhaul your entire hiring process at once. Start with your highest-volume or most critical role.
1. Month 1: Map your current process. Identify the biggest bottleneck and the stage where bias is most likely (usually resume screening and initial interviews).

2. Month 2: Design your success criteria and build your first structured interview guide. Anonymise your next 3 to 5 hiring rounds.

3. Month 3: Review outcomes. Did candidates experience a better process? Did you hire faster? Did quality improve? Use this data to refine and expand to other roles.
The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters Now
Singapore and Asia-Pacific organisations are competing for talent in a region where the best candidates have options. Fair, efficient hiring isn't a compliance checkbox—it's a competitive advantage.
Research from the Asia-Pacific region shows that younger workers and women are more likely to leave roles where they experienced bias or didn't feel fairly evaluated. If your hiring process reflects bias, your retention and internal progression will too.
Conversely, organisations known for fair, transparent hiring processes attract stronger candidate pools, experience lower turnover, and build teams with genuine diversity—not just demographic diversity, but cognitive diversity that drives better decision-making and innovation.
Merit-based hiring is achievable. It's not a slogan when you build systems that enforce it. And counterintuitively, these systems don't slow you down. They speed you up by removing noise, creating clarity, and helping you make confident decisions faster.

I love to write.