Ethical Recruitment Practices

𝗜𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗷𝗼𝗯? — 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦. We often talk about meritocracy in hiring — but research keeps reminding us how easily optics overshadow objectivity. 📊 A 2024 study by Harvard Business Review found that 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝟱𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. Similarly, research in the 𝘑𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 confirms that 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 — even when their résumés are identical to less “polished” counterparts. This isn’t vanity; it’s psychology. It’s called the “𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗼 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁” — a cognitive bias where one positive trait (like appearance or confidence) spills over to how we judge unrelated qualities (like intelligence or leadership). And it’s costly. Because every time we let surface cues dictate selection, we risk 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 that doesn’t advertise itself well. The solution isn’t to ignore presentation — it’s to balance perception with structure: • 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 and 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. • Involve 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹𝘀 to reduce individual bias. • Train leaders to recognize 𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗻 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 — before they unconsciously act on them. 💬 𝘐𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱, 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘴. #HiringBias #OrganizationalPsychology #Leadership #UnconsciousBias #DEI #FutureOfWork

"I hired them 30 minutes into the interview. When you know, you know!" "I know 5 minutes into an interview if I'm going to hire them or not!" "I don't need anyone else to interview a candidate for my team, I'm confident enough in my decision-making to make a hire!" This stuff always goes viral and jobseekers love it because at first glance, it's a story of efficiency and decisiveness and an easier hiring process which anyone in this job market wants. But give it a second read, and you realize that it's not the story of a great hiring process, it's the story of an inequitable one. If you're deciding whether or now you're going to hire someone a few minutes into an interview, you are doing that based on your gut instincts - and those gut instincts are shaped by a range of things - previous experiences, our emotions and mood going into the interview, our response to unrelated sensory inputs like a familiar scent, someone who looks like us or is wearing something we have at home or who reminds us of a loved one. In other words, a whole lot of bias that has nothing to do with a candidate's ability to do the job. Y'all I know that long processes with multiple interviews can be frustrating. But they are also one of the best tools we have to guard against bias: - interviews with different individuals means one person's bad day or personal biases don't tank your chances. - getting input from different stakeholders you would work with in the role means that a variety of perspectives are considered. - a range of interview types - behavioral questions about past experience, skills assessments to ensure someone can actually walk the walk, and conversations around values and vision for the role help ensure that we're not making assumptions about what someone brings to the table based on a past employer or their ability to say the right things. And these experiences also give candidates multiple view points on working at the company, and a better idea of the people they'd interact with day in and day out, and what the work is like. The truth is that a lot of those popular stories aren't stories about a recruiter or hiring manager who cares about candidate experience. They're stories about people who engage in biased hiring practices, and either don't realize it or don't care, or of people who want to go viral, even if that means encouraging and normalizing biased hiring practices.

A former employee asks you what you said about them in a background check. Do you; a) provide it transparently, or b) claim it is confidential and keep it from them? If you chose b, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner in Kenya awarded a 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 KES against a Sacco for that exact choice. Let us talk about why this decision (copy attached) is a seismic shift for workplace trust. Nzula suspected that her former employer had sunk a new job opportunity she was prospecting with a negative reference. She asked to see what the former employer said about her. She was met with a wall of silence. We must examine the entire theater of background checks and references. Employers perform them under the sacred guise of "𝐝𝐮𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞" and "𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧." They speak in hushed tones of "confidentiality." But what does that confidentiality truly protect? Does it protect the former employee? Rarely. It protects the former employer from accountability. It protects them from ever having to stand behind their words to the person those words define. Anything you disclose about an employee, be it their performance, conduct or character, is their personal data because it identifies that person and their uniqueness. The Data Protection Act does not contain a special exemption for gossip masquerading as a professional reference. Your right to know what a former employee or colleague is saying about you in this context is very important. You cannot correct a falsehood or truth you do not know exists. The objection to sharing a reference is perhaps the most telling part of the entire practice. If your assessment is fair, factual & documented, you should be able to stand by it to anyone, especially the subject. Objecting to its disclosure invariably suggests you cannot. It suggests a willingness to say one thing in the shadows to a new employer and another thing in the light to the employee themselves. For employees, your right to access information relating to you is your greatest weapon against shadowy and unaccountable professional sabotage. For employers, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐫𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐤-𝐚𝐧𝐝-𝐧𝐨𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫! You must now operate on the principle that any assessment you give could be read aloud by the employee in question. This will demand rigor, commitment to documentation and ultimately respect for the person on the other side of the file. The message from the ODPC is that you must be honest, factual and be prepared to own your words. The turning point of this case was not about the content of the reference. It was not about whether it was true or false, justified or malicious. The case turned on the absolute right of a data subject to access their personal data. What do you think? Does this transparency empower employees or stifle honest feedback? Axis Group - HR Advisor, Corporate Staffing Services Kenya, Elizabeth Wambui Gichohi, Everlyn Omondi

I was 25, sitting in a café, applying for jobs, when a senior woman across from me struck up a conversation. She was also job hunting. She told me she was struggling - not because of her skills or experience, but because of something I’d never considered a barrier: her age. I laughed and said, "Actually, I am pretty sure that’s what I’m being discriminated for too." In my interviews, I kept hearing the same invasive questions: ⤵️ “You look pretty young to have this much experience, how old are you?” ⤵️ "What age did you start working"? ⤵️ “Are you single? Any kids?” ⤵️ “Do you plan on getting married soon?” ⤵️ "Where do you live? Do you rent or own?” At the time, I was stuck between two worlds - too experienced for junior roles, not “seasoned” enough for senior ones. It felt like no matter how hard I worked, I didn’t fit the mould. That conversation made me realise something: bias exists at every stage of our careers. Too young. Too old. Too experienced. Not experienced enough. The goalposts constantly move. Fast forward to now - I haven't been rushing my job search, just exploring. And yet, I still hear the same outdated questions. ⤵️ "How old are you?" ⤵️ "Are you single or married?" ⤵️ "Any plans for children?" I often find myself responding with: 👉🏽 "How is that question relevant to this role?" And then there’s my personal favourite: ⤵️ "Where do you see yourself in 10 years?" Honestly? I don't know - hopefully 41 and alive... 🤷🏽♀️ Lol, it’s 2025… and we’re STILL doing this? 🤦🏽♀️ I used to second-guess myself. I used to wonder if I was overreacting. Now, I know better. 👉🏽 Your worth isn’t determined by outdated biases or someone's inability to recognise their own unconscious bias. 👉🏽 You don’t owe anyone personal details to prove your capability. 👉🏽 The right workplace will see your skills, not your status. To those facing these questions now: You are enough. And you deserve to be valued for what you bring to the table - not how you fit into someone else’s expectations.

Today, I find myself reflecting on a troubling trend in job postings that claim inclusivity while subtly discouraging applicants with disabilities. A perfect example comes from a job description for a Communications Manager with the Washington Nationals. The LinkedIn algorithm suggested I'd be a top applicant. A chance to blend my love of communication and baseball? My interest was piqued. On the surface, it outlines standard communication responsibilities—drafting press releases, coordinating interviews, and managing media relations. All of these align perfectly with the skills expected of a professional communicator. But then comes the Physical/Environmental Requirements section, which demands: • Standing for long periods. • Walking long distances. • Climbing up and down stairs. • Lifting up to 45 pounds. For a role focused on media relations, where exactly does lifting 45 pounds come into play? These physical requirements raise serious questions. Let’s unpack this: The job description explicitly states that the Washington Nationals are "dedicated to offering equal opportunity employment and advancement…including disability." Yet, these physical demands feel like unnecessary hurdles, particularly for disabled professionals. This disconnect is more than an oversight—it's a systemic issue. Arbitrary physical requirements often serve as a quiet signal that disabled applicants may not be fully welcome. Job descriptions like this one, with their misaligned physical requirements, highlight a glaring gap between intention and execution. They inadvertently screen out highly qualified candidates, not because they lack the skills, but because the posting assumes physical ability is synonymous with competence. Nowhere in my 15 years as a communications professional have I been asked to lift 45 pounds. Employers must evaluate if physical demands are truly essential. Is there a genuine reason for a communications manager to climb stairs or carry heavy loads? If not, these requirements should be removed. Companies claiming to value inclusivity need to ensure their job postings reflect that ethos. Accessibility isn’t just about wheelchairs and ramps—it’s about eliminating unnecessary barriers in hiring. Postings should explicitly encourage applicants to discuss accommodations. A simple line—“We are happy to accommodate your needs to perform essential job functions”—can make a world of difference. Language matters. If a company’s goal is true inclusivity, they must start by removing arbitrary barriers from their job descriptions. Let’s make sure equal opportunity is more than just a tagline. We're clearly in the off-season and the Washington Nationals latest job posting is a strikeout. Hopefully their next Communications Manager can encourage the use of inclusive language. #DisabilityInclusion #InclusiveHiring #DiversityMatters #AccessibilityForAll #EqualOpportunity #AccessibleJobs #InclusiveEmployment #RepresentationMatters #Nationals #GoNatsGo

Background checks. Sensitive data. Zero DPDP compliance. The most sensitive personal data comes from your hiring process. 📌 Criminal records. 📌 Financial history. 📌 Past employment. 📌 Address verification. 📌 Education certificates. And almost no Indian company has a DPDP-compliant process for any of it. Here is the legal reality your HR team doesn't know: Your company = Data Fiduciary. Your BGV vendor = Data Processor. Your candidate = Data Principal with enforceable rights under DPDP. Every obligation that applies to your customer data — applies here too. The 5 gaps I find in almost every BGV process I review: 1️⃣ Consent was never properly obtained. Most companies collect a generic clause inside the offer letter. Under DPDP — consent for a background check must be specific to that purpose, informed about what will be verified and with which sources, and separate from the employment acceptance. "I accept this offer" is not consent to a criminal record check. 2️⃣ No signed DPA with the BGV vendor. You have a commercial agreement with your BGV vendor. Under DPDP — that vendor relationship requires a Data Processing Agreement with breach notification timelines, deletion obligations, sub-processor controls, and Data Principal rights flowing down. A commercial agreement and a DPA are not the same document. 3️⃣ Candidate rights are completely unaddressed. Under DPDP, your candidate has the right to access what data was collected about them, from which sources, and what the report concluded. Most HR teams have no process for this. No one has asked before — but it is now a legal right, not a courtesy. 4️⃣ BGV reports are retained indefinitely. The candidate joined — or didn't. The report is still in your HRMS, your email, your recruiter's drive — years later. Under DPDP — personal data must be deleted once the purpose is fulfilled. The purpose of a background check is the hiring decision. Once made — the legal basis for retaining the report ends. 5️⃣ Cross-border transfers nobody mapped. Most BGV vendors verify employment and academic records through international databases. That is a cross-border data transfer. Under DPDP Section 16 — your company is responsible for it. Not your vendor. Does your BGV vendor's contract specify which countries your candidate's data flows to? _____________________________ The background verification industry processes thousands of sensitive personal data records every month in India. Almost none of it is DPDP-compliant. And the liability doesn't sit with the BGV vendor. It sits with the company that initiated the check and is the Data Fiduciary. Does your company have a signed DPA with your BGV vendor? ___________________ I help companies build DPDP-compliant hiring data processes — from candidate consent to vendor DPAs to rights response frameworks. Book 1:1 call to find out where you stand. (Link in comment.)

AI use in hiring can amplify bias even with human-in-the-loop. New research from UW and Indiana University found that when people work alongside AI to screen resumes, they mirror the AI's biases up to 90% of the time - even when they believe the AI recommendations are low quality. The study (N=528, across 1,526 scenarios) found that without AI, people selected candidates of all races equally. However, with biased AI, decisions shifted dramatically to favor AI-recommended groups. This happened regardless of whether bias aligned with OR contradicted stereotypes The HITL paradox - when you implement "human-in-the-loop" systems assuming humans will catch AI mistakes, humans may instead become conduits for algorithmic bias. One bright spot in their research found that completing implicit bias training BEFORE using AI increased selection of stereotype-incongruent candidates by 13%. The bottom line: AI-assisted hiring needs more than just human oversight...it requires: - Rigorous third-party fairness audits - Pre-task bias awareness training - Recognition that AI recommendations profoundly shape human judgment If your organization uses AI in hiring, ask: - Who's auditing it? - How are you training evaluators? - Are you measuring outcomes by demographic group? The risk isn't just legal - it's perpetuating inequality at scale. Full study here: https://lnkd.in/efJeMAbW P.S. imagine if this study didn't use AI for recommending resumes, but biased people recommending resumes to other people...how would bias pass through differently? #AIEthics #HRTech #Hiring #Bias #FutureOfWork

𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 ! ✨ We like to think hiring is about merit… but the numbers tell a different story... ➡️ 53% of managers admit to making hiring decisions that factor in physical appearance. 💄 40% would choose a conventionally attractive candidate over someone more qualified. 🧠 85% form impressions about a candidate’s competence based purely on looks. 🤝 34% believe physical traits help assess “cultural fit”. 📷 53% check candidates’ photos before interviews — and some reject based on the photo alone. 🌍 48% say today’s political climate makes them more comfortable factoring in appearance. 👔 Gender gap: Male hiring managers are more likely than women to say looks influence decisions (61% vs. 46%). 📅 Generational trend: Younger managers are slightly more likely to weigh appearance. 💼 Industry factor: Sales managers top the list for factoring in physical features. But for majority of hiring Managers feel physical traits signal professionalism, competence, and cultural fit, according to a new interesting research published by ResumeTemplates in partnership with Pollfish plateform using data from 882 managers worked at companies with 11 or more employees and conducted in August 2025. ✅ 𝙈𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬:  I found the results of these findings deeply worrying. They reveal that bias and discrimination are still alive in hiring decisions — even among those entrusted to build diverse, high‑performing teams. This is not a side issue; it’s a taboo that should be the number one priority for leaders to confront and eradicate in their organizations. 📚 Research shows that conventionally attractive people are often perceived as more competent, capable, and likable. But these perceptions are not a measure of true talent — they are a reflection of bias. ✨ In my view, talent has no gender, no beauty standard, and no sex. Skills, potential, and character should be the only currency in hiring. Here are my recommendations: 🌟 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬: ➡️ Make workforce equity a strategic priority alongside growth and innovation. ➡️ Audit hiring processes to identify and eliminate bias at every stage. ➡️ Invest in bias‑awareness training and embed inclusive hiring KPIs into leadership performance metrics. 🌟 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬: ➡️ Focus on skills, experience, and potential — not appearance or assumptions. ➡️ Use structured interviews and standardised evaluation criteria to reduce bias. ➡️ Present diverse shortlists to hiring managers and advocate for underrepresented talent. 🙏Thank you ResumeTemplates researchers team for sharing these insightful findings: Julia K. Toothacre MS 🔑If talent is invisible, why do we still let appearances influence who gets hired? #BiasInHiring #FairHiring #DiversityAndInclusion #UnconsciousBias

Ethics isn’t just about grand gestures—it’s about small, consistent actions that reflect integrity. Whether working with peers or engaging with clients, practicing basic ethics fosters trust, credibility, and long-lasting relationships. Here’s how you can make a difference: 1️⃣ Honesty is Non-Negotiable With peers: Share feedback respectfully and avoid gossip. With clients: If you can’t meet a deadline, communicate proactively instead of overpromising. Example: "We’re facing a slight delay, but here’s how we’re addressing it." 2️⃣ Respect Everyone’s Time With peers: Show up to meetings prepared and avoid last-minute delays. With clients: Stick to the agenda and respect their schedules. Example: Wrapping up a meeting with: "I appreciate your time; let me summarize our next steps." 3️⃣ Be Accountable With peers: Own your mistakes and focus on solutions. With clients: Deliver on promises and update them on progress. Example: "I realized I overlooked this detail; here’s how I’m fixing it." 4️⃣ Practice Empathy With peers: Understand workloads and offer help when needed. With clients: Listen actively to their concerns without jumping to conclusions. Example: "I hear your concern; let’s explore a solution together." 5️⃣ Confidentiality is Crucial With peers: Avoid sharing private discussions. With clients: Safeguard their information and respect their trust. Example: Handling sensitive data with utmost care and transparency. 🌟 Ethics isn’t about perfection; it’s about consistency. Small steps lead to big trust. What are the ethical practices you swear by at work? Share your thoughts below! #WorkplaceEthics #IntegrityAtWork #ClientRelationships #Teamwork

An accessible recruitment process is not just about offering adjustments/ accommodations, it should also include: Adequate Training Hiring teams should have adequate training in accessibility, ableism, bias, adjustments/ accommodations, and inclusive communication. This shouldn’t be a one-off training either; it should be annual and mandatory. Job Descriptions Hiring teams should be able to write job descriptions that are clear, anti-ableist, and free of jargon and acronyms. Role requirements should be essentials, not nice-to-haves and they should focus on outcomes. Adjustments/ Accommodations Always include an adjustments/ accommodations statement and include a point of contact. Hiring teams should know the process and be able to support candidates with confidence. Ask Preferred Communication Style Hiring teams need to be asking a candidate for their preferred communication style, and not just ignore it. If we say email is better, use email. Promote Accessibility at Every Step Emails to candidates should include an accessible message. Example: “If there is a more accessible way to communicate or if you need any adjustments/accommodations at any point, please let me know.” Be Flexible Be flexible when arranging interviews, interview locations, and during the interview itself. Keep Candidate Informed Keep a candidate informed of any next steps and provide timeframes. If you would like to learn more about creating an inclusive accessible recruitment process, please reach out: info@disabledbysociety.com) #WednesayWisdom #DisabilityInclusion #DiversityAndInclusion #Recruitment Image Description: A dark background filled with colourful squares and rectangles, of all different sizes. An off-black box contains text reading, "An accessible recruitment process is not just about offering adjustments/ accommodations". At the bottom left the Disabled By Society logo.