How to Reduce Bias in the Hiring Process

Three unpopular ways companies can remove bias from their hiring process. 👯 More interviewers Those posts that go viral about hiring someone after a single coffee chat? Or mocking hiring managers that need a panel ? That's all bias - decisions based on gut instincts instead of with objective criteria. Instead, involve multiple interviewers with different perspectives - a peers and key stakeholders may have different interactions with the new team member, and their input can help you make a better decision. 🔎 This is backed up research from Harvard that shows that structured interviews with multiple interviewers are 2x more predictive of success in the role than unstructured ones. 🪧 Assess skills I know skills assessments aren't popular, and many people claim that they won't engage in a process that includes them. But lots of people can talk the talk and make up examples in interviews. It's harder to fake hard skills. If you're hiring a financial analyst, ask them to build a model using dummy data. If you're hiring a social media manager, ask them to create a plan for a campaign for a fake product. Work samples are great as well! And then dig in with questions to fully understand what they did, why they made the choices they made, etc. to ensure they didn't just submit something where someone else did the work. 🔎 And the research backs it up: the Aberdeen Group did a study that showed that those who completed skills assessments had a 36% higher rate of retention in their roles than those who didn't. 💰 Don't negotiate Negotiation increases inequity. When companies are big on negotiation, hiring managers will suggest things like "let's go in at X so when they negotiate we can bump up to Y." Then the candidates who don't ask for more end up underpaid. It promotes playing games and the people who are afraid to push are the ones who will be negatively impacted. Instead, companies should be transparent about their salary ranges and how compensation is determined, and then apply those practices consistently across all hires. Adjusting offers should be reserved for the rare cases where a candidate brings new information to the table around their qualifications or ability to have an impact, or the company realizes they're misaligned to the market. Now, I do know that many companies don't operate this way so it never hurts to ask, but just know that if a company comes up a lot with their offer after you negotiate, that's a signal that they were happy to try to lowball you. 🔎 And again, research backs this up: countless studies from McKinsey to Leanin to Harvard show that there are differences in who negotiates and in how negotiation is perceived, and this hurts people from marginalized groups. Like I said, these aren't necessarily popular ideas - they are more work for companies AND candidates. But they are research-backed ways to make hiring more equitable. And that's something we should all support.

I used to think the hardest part of hiring was sourcing candidates. Turns out, most firms lose the best talent before interviews even begin, because of subtle bias in job descriptions and unstructured interviews. Here’s what I learned: 1. Unbiased Job Descriptions Matter Gender-neutral language: Replace “he/she” with “they/their,” and swap masculine/feminine-coded words for neutral alternatives like “goal-oriented” or “team-player.” Clear, accessible language: Avoid jargon, acronyms, and long lists of “must-haves” that unintentionally filter out qualified candidates. Inclusive titles: Use “software engineer” instead of “rockstar coder,” “firefighter” instead of “fireman.” 2. Structured Interviews Reduce Bias Standardized questions: Ask every candidate the same questions in the same order to avoid “likability bias.” Scoring rubrics: Grade answers objectively on merit, not gut feeling. Behavioral + situational questions: Focus on skills and past performance, not shared backgrounds. Diverse panels & limited chit-chat: Multiple perspectives + minimal small talk reduce affinity bias. Here’s the kicker: these simple practices don’t just make hiring fairer, they make it smarter. Firms using inclusive, structured approaches attract more qualified, diverse candidates, shorten time-to-hire, and build teams that actually perform. If you’re still relying on old-school job posts and free-flow interviews, you’re leaving talent and revenue on the table.

Résumés are dead signal. And most companies are still using them to make multi-hundred-thousand-dollar hiring decisions. Many HR functions are facilitating a dysfunctional process and not a critical business enablement function that gives leverage to the business. (Also highly frustrating to job seekers spending hours on resumes, applications, and interviews.) If your recruiting process starts with a résumé review and ends with a generic job description, you’re optimizing for polish—not performance. Here’s what high-growth, high-trust hiring actually looks like: 1. Hire from work, not words. Résumés are marketing copy. Ask: “What did you build that still works without you?” Have them walk you through it. A deck. A dashboard. A system. The best operators speak in outcomes. Everyone else describes process. 2. Prioritize ownership over optics. “Led,” “managed,” “oversaw”—those are spectator words. Ask: “What decision did you make—and what tradeoffs did you weigh?” Use this framework: What was the situation? What was your call? What happened next? You’ll know if they owned it—or just had a front-row seat. 3. Screen for judgment, not perfection. You’re not hiring someone who’s always right. You’re hiring someone who gets smarter with every rep. Ask: “What’s a decision you’d revisit now with new information?” Judgment compounds faster than skills. Look for signal that they’ve updated their playbook. 4. Run performance-based interviews. Would you greenlight a $300K contract based on a résumé and three Zoom calls? Then stop hiring that way. Create a scoped, role-relevant project. Debrief it live. You’re not testing polish—you’re testing how they think under pressure and with context. 5. Stop mistaking pedigree for potential. A Stanford degree or FAANG stint is just context, not signal. Ask: “What did you do that others around you weren’t doing?” Look for stretch, creativity, and earned scope. 10x people don’t always come from the obvious places. 6. Ditch culture fit. Define behavior. “Culture fit” is often a proxy for “feels familiar.” And that’s how you build sameness, not scale. Ask yourself: “What are the behaviors our best people consistently demonstrate?” Interview for those. Not vibes. Not style. 7. Design the org first. Then hire. Too many job descriptions are written after someone quits. That’s backfilling, not architecting. Ask: “What friction does this role unblock? What velocity does it add?” You can’t hire for leverage if you don’t map where you need it. 8. Hire for trajectory—not title. Title is a lagging indicator. Trajectory is a leading one. Ask: “Where were you two years ago—and what’s changed since?” Look for acceleration. People who scale themselves can scale your company. You don’t build a generational company by playing it safe. You build it by designing a hiring system that finds slope, judgment, and ownership—and rewards it.

Let’s talk about hiring and how we treat people in the process. There’s a lot going on in the world right now. For many, the job search only adds more stress and uncertainty. I’ve been thinking about how we can show up for our communities, and in my own work, that means prioritizing how we support candidates. In the progressive movement, we talk a lot about liberation, equity, and justice. But those values don’t always show up where they should (in our hiring practices). Whether we’re building campaigns, nonprofits, or foundations, *how* we hire is just as important as *who* we hire. The process is wicked important. It’s a window into how we operate, how we value people, and how seriously we take our commitments to equity. Here’s what it looks like to treat candidates well in the hiring process, especially in movement-aligned spaces: 1. Transparency & Respect ➡️ Post the salary every time. It’s not radical anymore, it’s baseline. ➡️ Share your timeline and stick to it. If things shift, update candidates about that shift. ➡️ Respond to everyone who applies or interviews. Even if it’s a no, it matters. ➡️ Share interview questions with your candidates ahead of time. This helps them prep and show up as their best selves to the call. 2. Remove Barriers ➡️ Ditch the cover letter and use clear application questions. Or, just ask for a resume and send a short written questionnaire as the first step in the process. ➡️ Again, be upfront about salary and benefits. It saves everyone time and builds trust. ➡️ Be mindful of time. Many strong candidates simply can’t afford to spend 10+ hours on interviews. Keep the process streamlined, focused, and as efficient as possible. ➡️ Compensate finalists for exercises. It shows you value people’s time and helps dismantle unpaid labor culture. 3. Consistent Process & Reduced Bias ➡️ Standardize your interviews. Same questions, same format = less bias, more fairness. ➡️ Use blind grading when appropriate. I like doing this especially for written exercises. A clear rubric helps us focus on key competencies.  ➡️ Make it collaborative. Final stages should include buy-in from both leadership and peers or direct reports the hire will work closely with. 4. The Candidate Experience Is Movement Work ➡️ Share your mission, values, and team vibe throughout the process. Candidates want to know what they’re stepping into. ➡️ For interviews, give candidates a heads-up on who they’ll meet and what to expect. When we treat candidates with dignity and transparency, we build stronger teams and stronger movements. We’re not perfect, and we don’t expect anyone else to be either, but we love partnering with clients who are willing to do the work to get better together. 🔍🔍 What would you add? What have you seen that works (or doesn’t) in progressive hiring? Drop your thoughts below. #EquityInHiring #NonprofitJobs #DEI #WorkplaceCulture #CandidateExperience #HiringEquity #PayTransparency 

On Hiring // Interviews // Projects: I have learned that I am not always good at making hiring decisions based on interviews alone. I easily get excited about candidates, which leads me to overlook red flags (a lesson I've learned the hard way) or instances of a fit/skills mismatch (in more commonplace scenarios). As a result, I have switched up the order of my hiring process. For me, this has been game changing. Rather than starting with an interview, I typically now do the following: 1. Request information for the role in a very specific format (ie: please send an email with XYZ title with your resume attached). —This often weeds out a large initial batch of candidates if: a) the candidate does not follow this format, or b) the candidate sends a templated email, or c) the candidate sends an email, applying to the position, that says something like, "what do you do?" and hasn't looked at the website or job description. 2. Start with a small, paid project. This is usually 1-2 hours of work, compensated at the person's normal rate (or, if this hasn't been established yet, at a rate that feels joyful and fair to the candidate). —For me, this is the single most helpful thing we can do during the hiring process. This allows us to see not only the work product, but how the candidate thinks about the project; how they present it; and how they communicate about it. 3. Then, move to references and an interview. —I typically check 2-3 references per candidate, and am currently experimenting with moving the interview to the *end* of the process. While this order of events might sound a bit radical, I'm finding that it is leading me to much better hiring decisions, and it puts a process in place that solves for my own tendency to want to hire everyone I interview because I like them. Research has shown that most of us are actually not very good at making hiring decisions based on interviews alone, and that we bring all sorts of personal biases into the process, even if we try not to. For example, it has been proven that we are more likely to hire someone who is perceived to be "like us." Incorporating a project (a real project that relates to work you're currently doing) is a way to align hiring decisions with skills, competencies, and quality of work, rather than simply on "personality" —which does not tend to correlate to fit. This also respects the candidate's time, because they can get a sense of whether the type of work aligns with what they most want to be doing. I know that this process isn't possible in all environments, but it works great within the context of my own business. Has anyone else experimented with an alternate hiring process along these lines? #hiring #interviewing #culture #leadership #teamculture #HR

Dwight Jackson, a Black man, claims that the Shinola Hotel denied him a job interview because of his race. He knows this, he says, because he reapplied for the same job at the same hotel with the same resume ... with one key difference. He changed his name to John Jebrowski. While the hotel didn't offer Jackson an interview, it did offer one to Jebrowski. That, Jackson says in his recently filed lawsuit, is race discrimination. Inherent bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that unconsciously affect our understanding, actions, and decisions. These biases can silently influence hiring decisions, leading to discrimination based on characteristics such as race. Name bias is one example of how inherent biases manifest themselves. What can an employer do to prevent these inherent biases from infecting hiring decisions? Here are 7 suggestions: 1. Implement blind hiring practices by removing identifying information from resumes and applications. 2. Develop a structured interview process with standardized questions for all candidates. 3. Use scorecards to evaluate responses consistently. 4. Train hiring managers on recognizing and mitigating inherent biases. 5. Form diverse interview panels to provide multiple perspectives on each candidate. 6. Analyze hiring data and practices to identify and address patterns of bias. 7. Define clear, job-related criteria for evaluating candidates. Eliminating inherent bias is critical to create fair and inclusive hiring practices, which in turn helps create diverse and inclusive workplaces. It also helps eliminate the risk of expensive and nasty discrimination lawsuits.

Are your job descriptions unintentionally turning away diverse talent? 🤔 In many organizations today, a recurring issue persists despite the company’s commitment to diversity: job postings aren’t attracting a diverse pool of candidates. While the leadership may be determined to ensure the company’s workforce reflects the diverse audience they aim to serve, hidden barriers within their hiring process may be unintentionally hindering progress. 🚩 🚩 Here is a list of phrases that should not appear in your job descriptions: 1️⃣ Rockstar” or “Ninja These terms can come across as masculine-coded or overly aggressive, potentially alienating women, nonbinary individuals, or those from cultures where such language is not common. 2️⃣ Native English Speaker This phrase can exclude candidates who are fluent in English but do not consider it their first language. Instead, use “proficient in English” if language skills are essential. 3️⃣ Must have X years of experience Rigid experience requirements can deter highly capable candidates with transferable skills but fewer formal years in the field. Focus on competencies instead. 4️⃣ Work hard, play hard This phrase might suggest a high-pressure, workaholic culture, which can alienate candidates seeking work-life balance, caregivers, or those prioritizing mental health. 5️⃣ MBA required or similar academic credentials Requiring advanced degrees when they aren’t truly necessary can exclude candidates with nontraditional educational paths or valuable real-world experience. 6️⃣ Fast-paced environment While common, this phrase can feel overwhelming or exclusionary to candidates with disabilities or those seeking more structured roles. Be specific about the nature of the work instead. 7️⃣ Culture fit This vague term can perpetuate unconscious bias and favoritism. Use “aligned with our values” or “culture add” to highlight the importance of diverse perspectives. 8️⃣ Strong verbal and written communication skills While valid in some roles, this phrase might dissuade neurodivergent candidates or those for whom English isn’t their first language if not clarified. Specify what kind of communication skills are truly needed. ✍️ By replacing these terms with inclusive, skill-focused language, organizations can craft job descriptions that not only attract a broader and more diverse pool of talented candidates but also align more closely with the diverse customer base they aim to serve. #InclusiveRecruitment #DiverseTalent #HRInnovation #InclusiveWorkplace #AttractTopTalent ________________________________ 👋 Hi! I am Luiza Dreasher, DEI+ Strategist and Facilitator. Looking to create meaningful change within your organization? I can help you implement successful and long-lasting DEI strategies that foster inclusion, attract diverse talent, and drive innovation. Let’s connect to explore how we can achieve your goals together!

Ever walked into a room and felt like you didn't belong? Now imagine feeling that way at work. Every. Single. Day. This is why diversity and inclusion in recruitment isn't just a buzzword – it's a business imperative. As someone who's spent years in executive research and recruitment, I've seen firsthand the power of diverse teams. But here's the truth: attracting diverse talent is just the beginning. I remember when a client came to me, frustrated. "We're trying to hire diversely," they said, "but it's not working." Their mistake? They were fishing in the same old ponds. So, how do we shake things up? Here's what I've learned: 1. Cast a wider net: Look beyond your usual talent pools. Partner with diverse professional organizations. 2. Check your job descriptions: Are they truly inclusive? Words matter more than you think. 3. Diverse interview panels: Candidates should see themselves reflected in your team. 4. Blind resume reviews: Remove bias-triggering information like names and schools. 5. Showcase your commitment: Make your diversity initiatives visible on your website and social media. And hiring diverse talent means nothing if you can't retain them. Inclusion is where the real work begins. I once worked with a company that hired a diverse workforce but couldn't figure out why turnover was so high. The problem? They expected new hires to "fit in" rather than creating a culture where everyone could belong. To foster true inclusion: -> Mentor programs: Pair diverse employees with senior leaders. -> Employee resource groups: Give people a place to connect and be heard. -> Inclusive leadership training: Help managers understand and mitigate unconscious bias. -> Regular feedback: Create safe spaces for honest conversations about inclusion. -> Celebrate differences: Don't just tolerate diversity – embrace it! You should focus on creating a workplace where everyone can thrive, contribute, and feel valued. As leaders, it's on us to make this happen. It's not always easy, but it's always worth it. What's your experience with diversity and inclusion initiatives? #DiversityAndInclusion #RecruitmentBestPractices #InclusiveLeadership #WorkplaceCulture

Looking for ideas of how to double-down on merit-based hiring, given the new "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity" executive order (EO)? The EO proclaims, “Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.” One idea for creating a more merit-based hiring process is something I’ve written about in my books and newsletters: Agree upon the criteria you’ll use to consistently evaluate candidates, and restate these requirements at the beginning of meetings to discuss candidates. I first learned about this approach from Google. At the start of their talent discussion meetings, everyone receives a brief handout describing common errors that assessors make and how to fix them. (https://lnkd.in/gZSZttMN) A theme throughout the handout is to help the interview team assess the pool based on merit, make objective decisions, and not be swayed by bias. As the handout explains, you want to “anchor evaluators to a single set of criteria so you don’t shift the standards during the evaluation.” This approach lets you focus on the merits you need to get the job done.

In the pursuit of diversity and inclusion, one hurdle that often times impacts efforts is Affinity Bias. Could this silent enemy be impacting your hiring and talent development practices? Affinity bias, the tendency to gravitate towards individuals who share similar attributes to our own, often subconsciously influences our decision-making. In hiring, it's crucial to mitigate such biases to ensure equal opportunities. But How can we eliminate affinity bias? ~ Incorporate structured interviews and performance processes, where each candidate is asked the same set of questions. ~ Use skills-based assessments to objectively evaluate capabilities, minimize factors that are personality based.  ~Train your hiring team and people leaders to recognize and counteract their biases. ~ Make space for Transparency so that leaders can candidly  be supported through key processes.  Above all, foster a culture that values inclusivity. Remember, diversity isn't just about filling quotas. It's about enriching teams with varied perspectives to fuel innovation and growth. Are you taking steps to counteract affinity bias in your hiring and talent development process? #AffinityBias #DiversityandInclusion #HiringPractices