Inclusive hiring – or the practice of minimising bias and ensuring equity – is increasingly seen as a vital underpinning of a sound recruitment process, with the aim of achieving fair outcomes and ultimately, a more diverse and equitable workforce. But there remain many questions around inclusive hiring.
What works, and what doesn’t?
What is best practice?
How are organisations reacting to emerging areas like neurodiversity in recruitment?
To gain some insight, we asked a series of nine questions to senior leaders in the HR, recruitment and organisational psychology space, with a focus on interviews and the general recruitment process.
1,846 of you responded to these polls.
Marie Blakesley and David Ward, consultants and organisational psychologists in our Leadership & Talent Consulting team, also conducted their own research into the current landscape to complement this data
Below are the results of four trending questions and our key takeaways.
What style of interview questions have you found leads to more inclusive hiring?
63% a mix / it depends.
19% strengths-based, 16% competency-based.
Our respondents generally preferred a mix of question styles. From our research, competency-based interviewing remains effective – alongside other tools such as work-sample tests that help to measure what is being performed in-role – but we must avoid designing in bias and equipping interviewers and candidates with the tools to succeed.
Many of our clients find their teams expressing frustration with competency-based interviewing. Delving deeper, this is often misdirected, with underlying issues around poor question design, interview techniques and structure. Our Foundational Interview Skills training and Advanced refresher training comprehensively covers the training needs of interviewers.
Structured (typically competency-based) interviews have repeatedly been demonstrated to be one of the most predictive methods of assessment; research also suggests that this – when developed in a considered manner with questions that have clear asks of the interviewee – is the fairest type of interview for autistic candidates. When designed well, these are robust, transparent and consistent. There has been growing movement on utilising strengths-based interviews, but the evidence of their validity and fairness has yet to be fully realised. Indeed, the nature of strengths-based interviewing requires great expertise and care on the part of the interviewer to avoid bias, as they can be open to more subjective assessment and – given they are what energises an individual – can heighten the importance of body language, tone of voice, or other areas that neurodivergent candidates could be unfairly scrutinised on. Again, these sorts of interviews require robust interviewer training and a keen eye on the process itself, to avoid designing in biases.
For candidates, a well-designed process and well-trained interviewers is a clear asset, but guidance for and consideration of the candidates themselves also makes a key difference.
Do you provide interview questions in advance of the interview itself?
65% no, these are not provided.
Yes, everyone (21%), yes for reasonable adjustments (RA) (14%).
Respondents generally did not provide interview questions in advance, however those that did were effusive in their praise for this action. Research is still catching up to practical application in inclusive hiring, but simple steps or process changes can advantage everyone.
There remains a ‘scientist-practitioner gap’ in recruitment, with research on inclusion – especially emerging areas like neurodivergence – and its impact on recruitment minimal. Systematic reviews find little contextualised, evidence-based practical advice for employers and candidates alike. But this does not mean we cannot put in place changes or make adjustments. Some neurodivergent candidates can struggle with episodic memory recall, impression management and cognitive load, and have a much less positive experience of interviews than others. Taking simple steps like sending out interview questions in advance can alleviate these factors. For all candidates, they can also lessen the issue of construct contamination in assessment.
Many assessments – particularly interviews – contain latent constructs (such as emotional intelligence or agreeableness) in addition to specified areas measured. Providing questions in advance for all can be one way of mitigating these, alongside other steps like training interviewers on neurodiversity. Providing questions in advance can be a concern for some interviewers, as it may lead to pre-written, memorised answers. Effective interviewer skills in probing can alleviate this and ensure the interview remains dynamic and useful.
You are hiring for a mid to senior level role. What is most important to you?
57% values / behaviours
Our respondents had a clear affinity for values and behaviours in their mid to senior level hiring. These are no doubt important, but should be expanded to consider culture add and value fit.
Many recruitment processes still have an implicit culture fit – or how compatible a candidate is with the culture of the organisation and team they will be joining – designed into them. This is important to how well a candidate can integrate into an organisation and should not be discounted, but to use it as a blunt tool can be detrimental to values-based diversity, or diversity of thought and expression. Instead, workplaces should consider culture add, where the focus is on what new perspectives and ways of working candidates can bring to an organisation. This can be combined with value fit, where candidates can relate to the team or organisation by virtue of their shared values, even if these are interpreted or enacted in different ways.
Practical steps to reduce culture fit bias can include utilising multiple panellists and structured interviews, as well as having guidance on organisational values, a checklist of phrases to avoid (e.g. ‘we did not have a good feeling about him’ / ‘she will be compatible with the team’), and training on challenging others – and your own biases – as an interviewer.
Do you view emerging technologies (like AI) as an opportunity or a challenge in creating and maintaining a fair and inclusive process?
47% a mix of both
For our respondents, emerging technologies such as AI could be both a challenge and opportunity for inclusive recruitment processes. It is worth noting that AI itself is neither good nor bad, merely a tool that reflects us and our priorities. As it continues to evolve, the hope is that AI will refine and refocus recruitment processes, but not replace the important human touch and the nuances only we as human beings can decipher.
As an emerging area, there is less research on AI within recruitment processes, but the hope is it can be used to bring forward humanistic recruiting, placing the applicant at the centre of a trusting, inclusive process. Indeed, AI could also help cultivate humanistic recruitment for the recruiters that utilise it. Increasing the efficiency of processes like pulling together candidate packs, scheduling of interviews, and checking for inclusivity of job description wording could allow recruiters to focus on the all-important relationship building and nuanced decision-making side of the role, bettering not only the candidate experience but decisions made as more time is allocated towards these. Risks come with such opportunities, with a diffusion of responsibility for decisions, introduction of algorithmic bias, and lack of transparency all considerations. Additionally, emerging technology in the recruitment space extends to the algorithms and assessments themselves. There are still ambiguities around the effect on diversity, impact on validity, and perceived fairness still to explore, as tech-based methods such as video interviews, simulations and gamified assessment increase in use.
For applicants, there is also much to consider from a recruitment standpoint. AI can be a helpful tool for candidates who may want to summarise their points, check their understanding of a role, or find it harder to put together aspects like CVs or suitability statements. Given the roles now being created off the back of AI such as prompt engineers, and other roles that are encouraged to utilise such technology on a day-to-day basis, it could be churlish to not allow some incorporation during the process.
Thinking back to the validity of recruitment processes, this is an area that will no doubt receive much scrutiny over the coming years: when and where can AI or emerging technologies add to the process? How can this be judged effectively? How does it translate to their day-to-day work? A candidate may use AI to format a report or create summary notes for a presentation. Equally, they may use it during an interview to create ‘perfect’ answers to questions asked. The former would be viewed positively by many, the latter much less so. For candidates wishing to utilise AI it is worth asking yourself: if I didn’t have AI available to me, would I be able to do this role?
There is much to do in the AI space. It will be continually refined over the coming years, hopefully ironing out the biases and the lack of nuance witnessed at this moment. Still, recruiters should remain cautious about how they utilise technology. Striving for a humanistic process is admirable and AI can be a great first step as a leveller, but there is always a cost-balance ratio to consider. How will a new process or system impact on time used versus time saved? How will it impact recruiters, hiring managers, and candidates? Has inclusivity and bias reduction been considered? If you’d like to speak to our experts in the technology recruitment space, give any of our Digital, Data & Technology team a call.
Final thoughts
As practitioners, many professionals in the recruitment and assessment space are working ahead of research on inclusive hiring, with differing interpretations of what the ‘right’ approach is. With careful consideration, scanning of recent research and an eye to the future, processes can be made equitable and fair, from design through to interviewer delivery and candidate perception.
We must remember that recruitment processes are a means to an end. For us, that means ensuring the right candidates are placed in the right roles in a fair and equitable manner. We can see here that this can be done in a multitude of ways, with a common thread of consistency and openness to new thinking.
What steps might you take to ensure this in your processes?
Find more insights like this by speaking with a member of our LTC team who can advise you on our inclusive recruitment offering, interviewer training, support for neurodivergent candidates or recruitment process design or review.
To learn more about our thoughts on emerging technology trends, read our article on DDaT trends for leaders in 2024, or contact any of our DDaT team via our website or on LinkedIn.
Bibliography links
- Dali, K. (2018). “Culture Fit” as “Anti-Diversity”: Avoiding human resources decisions that disadvantage the brightest.
- Davies, J., Heasman, B., Livesey, A., Walker, A., Pellicano, E., & Remington, A. (2023). Access to employment: A comparison of autistic, neurodivergent and neurotypical adults’ experiences of hiring processes in the United Kingdom.
- Doyle, N., & McDowall, A. (2021). Diamond in the rough? An “empty review” of research into “neurodiversity” and a road map for developing the inclusion agenda.
- Hunkenschroer, A. L., & Luetge, C. (2022). Ethics of AI‑enabled recruiting and selection: A review and research agenda.
- Levy, R. L., Harmata, R., Melson-Silimon, A., & Carter, N. T. (2023). Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of diversity.
- Maras, K., Norris, J. E., Nicholson, J., Heasman, B., Remington, A., & Crane, L. (2020). Ameliorating the disadvantage for autistic job seekers: An initial evaluation of adapted employment interview questions.
- McGuire, C., Rankin, J., Matthews, L., Cerinus, M., & Zaveri, S. (2016). Improving the quality of the NHS workforce through values and competency‑based selection.
- Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2021). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range.
- Smith, T., & Kirby, A. (2021). Neurodiversity at work.
- Stephens, N. M., Rivera, L. A., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2020). What works to increase diversity? A multi-level approach.