Ethical Recruitment Practices

How does a company with 1000 people end up with fewer than 20 Black people or less than 10% women? It’s called “diversity debt” — the idea that if your company consists primarily of a specific type of person by hire number 10, it’s basically impossible to get representation back on track. No one wants to be a DEI hire. When we were recruiting for Chezie, a company with an explicit mission to build more diverse and equitable workplaces, we knew we couldn’t fall into this trap. We had to figure out how to promote fair recruiting practices from day 1. Here’s what we did: 1. Encouraged all to apply: We know long lists of requirements can scare people off, so we made sure to include a note encouraging candidates to apply, even if they didn’t check every box (pictured below!). More and more companies are doing this these days, which we love to see. 2. Posted clear compensation ranges: Transparency is huge for us, so we shared salary and equity details upfront in every job posting. This keeps us accountable and helps us avoid perpetuating pay gaps. 3. Standardized the application process: Every candidate went through the same @Airtable form with screener questions, which made sure we evaluated based on qualifications, not biases. 4. Sourced diverse candidates: We intentionally reached out to underrepresented communities. For example, we used Wellfound’s diversity feature filter to invite people directly to apply. 5. Accommodations-Ready: Before interviews, we asked candidates if they needed any accommodations because everyone should feel comfortable and supported during the process. You can hire for merit and make your process more inclusive at the same time. I promise. As the founder ecosystem becomes more diverse, I think more founders will prioritize building teams the right way. For any founders hiring or who’ve recently hired, what did you do to build equity into the process? #recruiting #startups

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

A few years ago, a recruiter went viral for noting that she'd extended an offer for exactly what a candidate asked for, even though it was well below the budget for the role, critiquing the candidate for not understanding the market and "knowing their worth" because recruiters can't be responsible for teaching people how to negotiate. And countless recruiters made their own posts patting themselves on the back sharing stories about how they told candidates to ask for more. Of course the issue is that those recruiters were still perpetuating inequitable hiring processes. Here's the truth: any time a candidate is able to negotiate to receive a better offer, there is inequity in the system. - What about the candidates who don't have as much insight into compensation for the role? - What about the candidates who don't get insight from the recruiter around the need to negotiate? - What about the candidates who are too desperate to risk losing an offer by asking for more? The most equitable way for employers to approach compensation is to: 1. Have a clear process for setting compensation based on objective criteria that can be implemented fairly and consistently. 2. Avoid negotiation other than in rare cases where there is new information that aligns with said criteria. 3. Be transparent about those practices so candidates understand how the company arrived at the number and why it's not negotiable. And none of that should be contingent upon a candidate asking for the right number. It's not a candidate's job to be an expert on compensation. Any time you find yourself saying things like "let's offer 100k, and then we can negotiate up to $110k if they push", you should really be leading with that $110k offer. And candidates, you should know that if if a company communicates their compensation and compensation philosophy with you up front, lets you know they won't negotiate since they are focused on equitable compensation and are leading with their best and final offer, that's a really good signal that they care about doing right by their employees from a compensation perspective.

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.)

This week, the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) released its "Recruitment Rewired" report (see link in comments), and it’s a massive wake-up call for our industry here in the UK. If your Talent Acquisition team uses AI to sift, score, or rank candidates, the regulatory playbook has officially changed. For years, the industry has leaned on the "Human-in-the-Loop" defence to avoid the strict rules of Automated Decision-Making (ADM). The ICO has just closed that loophole. Here is the TL;DR on what HR and TA leaders need to know right now: ➡ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 "𝗥𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗿-𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗽" 𝗜𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱 • If an AI gives a candidate a "Red" fit score and a hiring manager simply clicks 'reject' without a meaningful review of that specific application, the ICO classifies this as a solely automated decision. Token human involvement no longer protects you from ADM regulations. ➡ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗶𝘃𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀: • Thanks to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, there is a clearer path forward. The ICO explicitly advises moving away from "Consent" (which is rarely 'freely given' by desperate job seekers) and instead relying on "Legitimate Interests" to process high-volume AI hiring. ➡ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟮𝟮𝗖 "𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵" • You are allowed to use fully automated sifting, but you must implement strict safeguards. If an AI rejects a candidate, you must explain the logic, give them the right to contest the decision, and offer the right to request a manual human review. ➡ 𝗩𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿 𝗕𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗟𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 • You can no longer hide behind your tech provider if an algorithm discriminates. The ICO expects employers to demand bias testing results during procurement, run their own independent fairness trials, and actively monitor recruitment outcomes for ongoing bias. Ignorance of the algorithm is not a legal defence. ➡ 𝗗𝗣𝗜𝗔𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗡𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 • Pointing to your tech vendor’s privacy policy is no longer sufficient. Employers are accountable, and if your Data Protection Impact Assessment doesn't explicitly map out these new AI safeguards and bias mitigations, you are exposed. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝗺𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲: The ICO is not trying to kill volume hiring or innovation. They are giving the industry permission to automate, but demanding absolute transparency and fairness in return. More on this soon...

Spending two years in a job and then switching to a new company is very trendy these days. And I don't blame the people who do it because it often leads them to much higher salaries. But companies hate it. Hiring someone new usually costs much more than keeping a current employee. Yet, most companies fail to resolve the real issue - which is showing appreciation and providing fair rewards to their current employees. Many companies blame this high attrition on employees. But the same companies offer higher salaries to new employees instead of promoting from within or taking initiative to close pay gaps. This new trend makes it difficult for the people who really want to commit and spend years at a company to feel valued. Over the last 2 years, many companies also resorted to layoffs as the first solution to reduce costs, again eroding their employees’ trust. TO EMPLOYEES: Go somewhere that makes you feel valued and respected. Not just ones that provide high pay at first but then stagnate you over the next few years. Commit your time and energy to an employer who chooses to look within before hiring externally, and promotes the growth and development of its employees. TO EMPLOYERS: If you want to stop losing employees then you have to start taking care of the ones you have rather than constantly looking for shiny new ones. Respect and loyalty are a two-way street. Do you think this job hopping trend will go away soon? #CareerGrowth #JobChange #JobHopping

Research indicates that women only apply for jobs that they think they met all the job requirements and men when they meet 80%. His advice to the women in the audience 👉Apply even if they only meet 80% of the job requirements. I wasnt going to let that comment pass 🙄 My question to him and hiring managers, if we know this research, if we know the barriers 💙what would we and our organization do to change the way we advertise for the jobs to remove this barrier? Would we 🥏Redesign the job description between must have and nice to have 🥏Change the language to include transferable and learnable skills versus experienced skill 🥏Include invitations to apply even if don’t meet all the job requirements 🥏Encourage hiring managers to focus on core competencies rather than rigid criteria. 🥏Avoid overly specific terms that might discourage potential applicants. 🥏Use gender-neutral language to ensure that job descriptions appeal to a diverse audience. 🥏Train hiring managers and recruiters on unconscious bias and the impact of rigid requirements. Help them recognize the value of diverse perspectives. Because The responsibility of inclusion lies with those who have the power to change the system. Agree?

What is your view about anonymised recruitment? We are increasingly asked to work in this way, but I can't help but feel it can remove the essence of the candidate. Anonymised recruitment aims to reduce bias by removing personal details from the hiring process so that decisions focus solely on skills, experience, and suitability for the role. This often involves removing information such as names, addresses, gender, photos, and sometimes education dates. Reviewing applications should then take place without access to any identifying information. Recruiters and hiring managers should be encouraged to assess candidates based purely on their relevant experience, achievements, and qualifications. To support this, it helps to use clear, job-related selection criteria and to communicate these criteria consistently across the recruitment team. Structured and standardised interviews also play an important role. Preparing a set of predetermined questions linked directly to the role’s competencies allows each candidate to be assessed fairly and consistently. Any form of informal questioning that may inadvertently reveal personal details unrelated to the job should be avoided. Supplementing interviews with skills-based assessments—marked anonymously—can further ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence of capability. It is also beneficial to involve a diverse interview panel, as this reduces the influence of individual biases and encourages more balanced decision-making. Providing training on equality, diversity, and unconscious bias helps ensure that everyone involved understands both the purpose and the principles behind blind recruitment. Ongoing monitoring is essential. Regularly analysing recruitment data can help identify patterns or stages where bias may still be creeping in, allowing organisations to refine their processes accordingly. Gathering feedback from candidates and hiring managers can also highlight opportunities for improvement. Ultimately, embedding anonymous recruitment practices should not be about eliminating all human judgement but about creating a system where that judgement is as fair, objective, and inclusive as possible. Over time, it is hoped that these practices contribute to a more diverse workforce and a more transparent hiring culture.

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.

Every 1-2 years, job switch. Salary naik 20%-25%. More money, better life—shiok hor? I’ve seen this many times. When I ask why they left each job, the answer is always: “I wasn’t actively looking, but a headhunter called me… I saw a better opportunity, so I moved.” But when I dig deeper… the main reason is always 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲. Well, at first, yes, their salary is higher than their peers. But after a while, they start facing the challenge of getting a new job. That’s bcoz, once hiring managers see a pattern, they start to question their intentions and stability: ❓“Why did they leave every job after just 1-2 years?” ❓“Did they move for career growth… or just purely for salary?” ❓“Will they stay long in my team, or leave the moment things get tough?” If every job hop was just purely for higher pay.. hiring managers might also think: 🚩 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠. Companies invest time and effort to train new hires. If they feel the person will leave again in a year for another salary jump, they might not even consider them. 🚩One day, they might be “𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞” but not “𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡” If skills don’t grow along with salary, companies may find someone younger, cheaper, and with the same experience. Worse, 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. So before making your next move, ask yourself: 1️⃣ Why am I looking out? Is it bcoz there’s really no more room to learn and contribute in my current company, or just bcoz of the salary? 2️⃣ Am I learning something new that aligns with my career goal, or just getting paid more for the same thing? 3️⃣ Does this new job offer real career growth besides just a salary increment? 4️⃣ Can I justify my salary with new skills and contributions? 5️⃣ Will this move help me gain new skills that make me more valuable in the long run? 6️⃣ Am I leaving bcoz of a real career limitation, or am I just running away from temporary challenges? 7️⃣ How will this move position me for my next career step? Short-term pay bumps are shiok. But will it be a roadblock in the long run? So, which one would you pick—short-term shiok or long-term gain? P/S: A higher salary might feel shiok now, but if there’s no real career growth, you might hit a wall one day. Plan beyond the next paycheck. ______________________________________ 🌟 I’m a seasoned headhunter helping employers find purpose-driven talent. If we’re not connected yet, send me a request ya! — Pauline Cheang #careergrowth #salarygrowth #jobhopping #hiringmanagers #longtermsuccess