No, but almost none of them are “good” if “good” is defined as “eliminates all influence of biases irrelevant to performance such that superficial things like appearance play a role not explicable by their ability to predict performance.”
People who are not serious about hiring think this is the goal.
This is not the goal. The goal is to bring people on board who will successfully utilize your resources to bring success to your organization.
Eliminating bias is a red herring. You’re better off trying to increase your bias so that it statistically gets you a higher chance of hiring the people you want.
My most cynical reason for seeking to reduce bias is because I want to hire — as you said — people that will bring success to our organization, without my biases clouding my judgement.
> You’re better off trying to increase your bias
Care to elaborate? That sounds like a terrible idea to me, I'd prefer to hire people based on their skills, not my biases. From the study:
> we do not find a strong correlation between “looking the part” and job performance
If you ask two separate candidates "what is 1 + 1?" and one responds "2" and the other responds "37" but played a card game when they were young, would you hire the latter? (hypotheticals are cheap, but you get my point)
You used the word “mitigate” but in the same post also expressed surprise that any bias effect was left at all, which indicated you expected elimination of the effect from a “good hiring process" rather than mere mitigation.
You responded to a post saying that the effect exists (neither characterizing magnitude nor what the base rate would be without mitigation) and said you were surprised that was the case.
If you only expect mitigation, there would be no basis for surprise, of any degree, at the mere fact of the effect existing.