Identifying Hidden Barriers in Recruitment

Your job description is 3 pages long AND you require a custom cover letter? Congratulations, you've eliminated half your talent pool before they even apply! I often talk about how recruitment is uninclusive by design, but vague statements don't help anyone fix the problem. Let's get specific about three common practices that are sabotaging your talent attraction, employer branding, and DEI efforts: 🟣 The lengthy, jargon-filled novel you call a job description is actively excluding neurodiverse candidates, people from different cultural backgrounds, and career-changers who don't speak your "industry language." They're closing the tab before they even finish reading! 🟣 "Please submit a customized cover letter explaining why you're perfect for this role." Translation: "We only want candidates with abundant free time and no other responsibilities." Just like that, you've eliminated job-seekers juggling multiple applications, caregivers with limited time, and many disabled candidates. 🟣 The never-changing phone screen: Sure, they're convenient for YOU, but what about candidates who read lips, need ASL interpretation, read captions, process information better visually, or simply perform better with some visual context? The phone screen is the ultimate "this is how we've always done it" trap. These practices aren't random examples. They're standard at most companies and recruitment teams! We follow these steps without questioning how they create unnecessary barriers and perpetuate the very inequities we claim to be fighting. What "standard" recruitment practices is your company clinging to that might be harming your inclusion and equity efforts? 👋🏻 I make hiring systems work for everyone (candidates and recruiters!). DM me to learn more.

Rethinking recruitment for inclusion and equity Recruitment can feel like a fair process on the surface, but for many candidates when you consider the different components there are hidden hurdles at every stage. Small changes can make a big difference: 🔹 Job adverts : Keep language clear, avoid jargon, focus on essential skills, and be explicit about adjustments. 🔹 Applications : Offer flexible formats (CV, form, video), and avoid unnecessary timed tests. 🔹 Interviews: Share structure and sample questions in advance, allow choice of environment, and train interviewers to recognise bias. Consider the skills you want to see and assess for these (and not judging skills that are not essential for completing the job) 🔹 Onboarding: Provide timetables and expectations in writing, work rules, use buddy systems, and break information into manageable steps, set up regular meetings to check understanding of expected outcomes. Check if there are training needs. True inclusion isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about removing barriers so people can show their best selves and employers have access to the best talents. When recruitment is transparent and flexible, organisations don’t just “accommodate” difference, they unlock talent that may otherwise be overlooked or talents may be lost. What’s one recruitment adjustment you’ve seen that really makes a difference for you?

🗣 Let’s get real about one hiring barrier we often miss: It’s not always the résumé. Sometimes it’s the talk. We unconsciously filter out people for their delivery—how they speak, the rhythm, the pauses—especially neurodivergent folks whose communication doesn’t fit a narrow mold. And the data backs it up: • 89% of adults with ADHD report expecting discrimination, much of it stemming from how they communicate—not their skillset . • In a UK national study, adults with high ADHD symptoms were nearly 10× more likely to report discrimination e.g. because of how they talk—even after adjusting for age, gender, and income . • Qualitative research shows many hide their diagnosis and communication style just to avoid being excluded . This isn’t about politeness. It’s about conformity. 👉 When we screen out someone for how they talk, we’re rejecting perspectives before we even hear them. That’s not inclusion. That’s a filter for sameness. If you want curiosity, emotional intelligence, creativity— you can’t keep punishing divergent communication. Hard truth: Great talk isn’t always polished. Clarity isn’t always fluent. Real connection doesn’t always flow smoothly. Hire for what’s said, not just how it’s said. This is #WhyNotLeadership.

3 hidden biases quietly sabotage your top talent. Not because you’re a bad leader. But because of invisible patterns hardwired into how we evaluate people. When it comes to spotting future leaders, we all have blind spots. Leadership consulting firms have been trying to crack the “potential code” for decades. Yet research shows traditional models fail to predict who will actually succeed. Why? Not because of bad intentions. But because of biases we don’t even realise we’re using. Here are 3 that may be shaping your talent pipeline: 1. The Passion Paradox ↳ When certain team members show enthusiasm, you label them "committed" ↳ When others show the same passion, you see them as "overly emotional" ↳ Research suggests passion is judged unequally, creating significant disparities in who gets labeled ‘high potential. 2. The Visibility Illusion ↳ 73% of employees believe managers aren't aware of their full contributions ↳ You naturally notice work done in your presence (or in your style) ↳ Remote, quiet, or differently-structured work is systematically undervalued 3. The Familiarity Filter ↳ You unconsciously favour people who remind you of yourself ↳ Similar backgrounds, communication styles, and thinking patterns feel "right" ↳ This shrinks your talent pool to mirror-images of current leadership The cost? McKinsey's research shows companies with more diverse leadership are better positioned for innovation and long-term performance. But it starts with fixing how we spot potential. How forward-thinking leaders break these bias patterns: 1. Create objective potential criteria ↳ Define potential by specific behaviors, not subjective feelings ↳ Example: "Takes initiative to solve problems without prompting" vs. "Shows leadership qualities" 2. Implement structured contribution tracking ↳ Have team members document their impact weekly ↳ Review these logs before making development decisions ↳ This captures valuable work happening outside your direct view 3. Diversify your talent spotters ↳ Never let one person alone determine who has "potential" ↳ Create talent review panels with diverse perspectives ↳ This prevents single blind spots from becoming systemic barriers 4. Separate performance from potential ↳ High performance ≠ High potential ↳ Performance = Current results ↳ Potential = Ability to succeed in more complex roles The strongest leaders don't just identify the obvious stars. They build systems that reveal the invisible ones. Which bias might be limiting the potential you're able to see in your team? ♻️ Repost to help leaders identify hidden talent ➕ Follow Florence Divet ☀️ for more leadership insights 📌 For access to all my infographics, join my free newsletter: https://lnkd.in/ePitBSZv

Inclusive hiring red flags 🚩🚩🚩 Because if your recruitment process wasn’t built with accessibility in mind, then chances are... it’s leaving people out. Here are a few red flags I see often 👇 1. “Let us know if you need accommodations.” I know this sounds supportive. But putting the responsibility on the candidate to ask for what they need can create more pressure than you might think. ✅ A better approach? Share upfront what accessibility features are already built into your process, and invite candidates to reach out without needing to explain or disclose personal details. 2. Timed tasks with no flexibility. Not everyone processes information the same way. And when assessments assume they do, we risk missing out on incredible talent. ✅ Offer extra time or alternative formats. Accessibility doesn’t mean lowering the bar, it means giving everyone a fair shot. 3. Application platforms that aren’t accessible. If your job site doesn’t work with screen readers or on mobile, you’ve already excluded some of the people you say you want to include. ✅ Audit your platforms from end to end, from the job ad all the way to the offer letter. Because inclusive hiring isn’t just about who applies. It’s about who feels they belong and who gets a real chance from day one. What’s one hiring barrier you’ve seen or removed in your company? #InclusiveHiring #Accessibility #Leadership #DisabilityInclusion

Finding a Disability inclusive employer can feel like searching for a needle in a haystack... Not because Disabled talent is rare, but because genuinely inclusive organisations are. Most employers say the right things. They publish the statements. They post the hashtags. They talk about “welcoming everyone”. They win awards. And then you apply as a Disabled applicant or get hired, and suddenly the reality hits: Inaccessible recruitment. Adjustments that take months. Managers who “care” until you actually need something. Budgets that disappear the moment Disability is mentioned. A culture that celebrates inclusion publicly while sidelining Disabled staff privately. This isn’t a talent pipeline issue. It’s a systems issue. If organisations want to attract and keep Disabled people, they need to stop polishing the brand and start fixing the barriers. They need to stop rushing to win awards and instead address the actual issues. Not someday. Not when there’s budget. Now. Disabled people aren’t asking for miracles. We’re asking for workplaces that actually work. Image Description: A Disabled By Society graphic. Set on a dark purple/black background. The graphic is split into six panels, each with a simple illustration of Disabled people in workplace settings. Each panel has a statement in coloured text, which reads: “They say we welcome Disabled people, yet their recruitment processes remain inaccessible. “They say they provide adjustments, but then make you prove why and jump through hoops to access them. “They tell us to speak up, but when we do, they dismiss our approach or don’t act on them. “We’re told managers are supportive, but when we do speak up, we’re suddenly seen as difficult or ‘too much’. “They say they want to make change, but then tell us it’s not a priority, or that there’s no budget. “They promote inclusion, Yet Disabled people working there often experience a very different reality. #DisabledBySociety #ThursdayThoughts #Workplaces #Inclusion

"Half of neurodivergent adults have been laughed at, ghosted, or had job offers rescinded simply for disclosing their neurodiversity. This shocking statistic isn't from 1995—it's from 2024." I've been reflecting on how our recruitment processes often unintentionally exclude talented neurodivergent individuals. The traditional hiring process is filled with barriers: - Ambiguous job descriptions with subjective requirements - Complex, lengthy applications - Overwhelming interview environments - Timed assessments and group exercises Small changes can make a huge difference: - Remove subjective language from job descriptions - Provide clear instructions about the interview process - Offer questions in advance - Allow candidates to bring notes - Create sensory-friendly assessment spaces Companies like Zurich UK are leading the way by removing unnecessary qualifications from job listings, creating workplace sensory maps, and offering neurodiversity assessments to employees. The business case is clear: neuroinclusive recruitment practices don't just benefit neurodivergent candidates, they improve the experience for everyone while bringing diverse thinking and innovation to your organisation. What neuroinclusive practices has your organisation implemented? I'd love to hear your experiences. #NeuroinclusiviRecruitment #Neurodiversity #TalentAcquisition #InclusiveHiring

I've been hearing increasing frustration from my network recently and my inbox is filled with outstanding job seekers looking for advice, about perfectly qualified candidates, especially seasoned leaders, being auto-disqualified or ghosted almost immediately at application stage, often within minutes or hours. Many point the finger at AI-powered screening tools as the main culprit in this tough job market. While that's possibly part of the picture, my sense is that the issue runs deeper than just "the bots are broken." I'm particularly struck by stories from highly experienced executives and senior leaders whose resumes align almost word-for-word with the job description, yet upon application, they hit an immediate wall: ATS rejection, "disqualified" status, or complete silence. In a market where internal recruiters and hiring teams are drowning in applications (often hundreds per role), how and why are these standout candidates, who most organisations would jump at the chance to interview, falling at the very first hurdle? Common triggers seem to include: Knockout/pre-screening questions in the application form (e.g., exact years of experience, specific certifications, salary expectations) a single "no" can auto-reject before the resume is even parsed. Subtle mismatches in keyword phrasing (even when the experience is equivalent and cvs have been written to ensure they're ATS friendly). Hidden filters like minimum requirements, or even over-qualification in some rigid systems. High-volume overload leading to stricter automated cutoffs. What are you seeing on the ground? Is it truly AI gone wrong, knockout questions biting back, or something else entirely in this volatile hiring environment? Would love to hear from recruiters, hiring managers, and job seekers, what's really happening here, and how are top talent candidates navigating it successfully? #Hiring #Recruitment #JobSearch #Leadership #ATS #TalentAcquisition

AI is quietly reshaping who gets hired — and who never gets seen. This CNN article on the Workday lawsuit is a wake-up call. But it’s not new. Back in 2018, my team and I started reverse-engineering ATS and AI hiring platforms to understand why qualified candidates — especially older workers, people of color, and those with nontraditional backgrounds — were being rejected in seconds. What we discovered was unsettling: formatting, gaps, and even unconscious patterns in the data were blocking access to opportunity. Not because someone said “don’t hire them” — but because the system learned to. This issue affects: ·       CEOs and executives accountable for fairness and performance ·       Recruiters and hiring teams under pressure to move fast ·       Career advisors and workforce orgs helping people find their path ·       And above all, the job seekers being quietly filtered out We’ve spent years building ethical, transparent tech to help people get past these invisible barriers. But this isn’t just about software — it’s about accountability, equity, and leadership. If you’re in hiring, talent, education, or workforce — read this. Then let’s ask: Are we paying attention to what our systems are really doing? https://lnkd.in/dyaUgWbt #Leadership #HiringBias #CNN #Claresduffy #AIethics #ATS #WorkforceDevelopment #DEI #CollegeCareer #Recruiting #HRTech #WomenInTech #Inclusion #workday

I once broke a fundamental recruitment rule: I championed a candidate whose English communication skills were below our usual standards. The requirements were clear—strong backend experience, cloud architecture knowledge, and fluent English. This senior developer aced the technical criteria but struggled in our English assessment. My boss rejected him immediately: "The client wants strong communication. Next candidate." But his technical portfolio wouldn’t let me walk away. His architecture was elegant, his problem-solving innovative. I urged my boss to reconsider. "You're setting yourself up for failure," he warned. "The client won’t even consider him." After persistent advocacy, we arranged a phone screening. As expected, he paused often, searching for words. Yet beneath those hesitations was undeniable expertise. To everyone's surprise, the client requested a technical interview. Afterward, they admitted: "His English isn't perfect, but his technical communication was clearer than candidates with better language skills." Later, the client’s CTO shared this: "Thank you for pushing us outside our comfort zone. He's already improving our architecture, and his English is getting better every day." This experience still makes me wonder—how many brilliant minds are overlooked due to superficial language barriers? Are we mistaking polished English for real technical excellence? #HiddenTalent #BeyondBias #GlobalRecruitment #TechnicalExcellence #DiverseHiring