Overcoming Hiring Biases

LinkedIn just responded to the bias claims. They think they refuted my research. I believe they just confirmed it. Following the recent discussions on whether the algorithm suppresses women's voices, LinkedIn's Head of Responsible AI and AI Governance, Sakshi Jain, posted a new Engineering Blog post to "clarify" how the feed works (link in comments). I’ve analysed the post. Far from debunking the issue, it inadvertently confirms the exact mechanism of Proxy Bias I identified in my report (link in comments). Here is the breakdown: 1. The blog spends most of its time denying that the algorithm uses "gender" as a variable. And I agree. My report never claimed the code contained if gender == female. That would be Direct Discrimination. I have always argued this is about Indirect Discrimination via proxies. 2. Crucially, the blog explicitly lists the signals they do optimise for: "position," "industry," and "activity." These are the exact proxies my report flagged. -> Industry/Position: Men are historically overrepresented in high-visibility industries (Tech/Finance) and senior roles. Optimising for these signals without a fairness constraint systematically amplifies men. -> Activity: The (now-viral) trend of women rewriting profiles in "male-coded" language (and seeing 3-figure percentage lift) proves that the algorithm’s "activity" signal favours male linguistic patterns ("agentic" vs. "communal"). 3. The blog confirms the algorithm is neutral in intent (it doesn't see gender) but discriminatory in outcome (because it optimises for biased proxies). In the UK, this is the textbook definition of Indirect Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. In the EU, this is a Systemic Risk under the Digital Services Act (DSA). LinkedIn has proven that they can fix this. Their Recruiter product uses "fairness-aware ranking" to mitigate these exact proxies (likely for AI Act compliance). The question remains: Why is that same fairness framework not being applied to the public feed? 👉 What We Are Doing About It Analysis is important, but action is essential. I am proud to support the new petition, "Calling for Fair Visibility for All on LinkedIn". This isn't just a complaint; it’s a demand for transparency. We are calling for an independent equity audit of the algorithm and a clear mechanism to report unexplained visibility collapse. If you are tired of guessing which "proxy" you tripped over today, join us and sign the petition (link in the comments).

Louder for the people at the back 🎤 Many organisations today seem to have shifted from being institutions that develop great talent to those that primarily seek ready-made talent. This trend overlooks the immense value of individuals who, despite lacking experience, possess a great attitude, commitment, and a team-oriented mindset. These qualities often outweigh the drawbacks of hiring experienced individuals with a fixed and toxic mindset. The best organisations attract talent with their best years ahead of them, focusing on potential rather than past achievements. Let’s be clear this is more about mindset and willingness to learn and unlearn as apposed to age. To realise the incredible potential return, organisations must commit to creating an environment where continuous development is possible. This requires a multi-faceted approach: 1. Robust Training Programmes: Employers should invest in comprehensive training programmes that equip employees with the necessary skills for their roles. This includes on-the-job training, mentorship programmes, online courses, and workshops. 2. Redefining Hiring Criteria: Organisations should revise their hiring criteria to focus more on candidates’ potential and willingness to learn rather than solely on prior experience or formal qualifications. Behavioural interviews, aptitude tests, and probationary periods can help assess a candidate's ability to learn and adapt. 3. Partnerships with Educational Institutions: Companies can collaborate with educational institutions to design curricula that align with industry needs. Apprenticeship programmes, internships, and cooperative education can bridge the gap between academic learning and practical job skills. 4. Lifelong Learning Culture: Encouraging a culture of lifelong learning within organisations is crucial. Employers should provide ongoing education opportunities and support for professional development. This includes continuous skills assessment and access to resources for upskilling and reskilling. 5. Inclusive Recruitment Practices: Employers should implement inclusive recruitment practices that remove biases and barriers. Blind recruitment, diversity quotas, and targeted outreach programmes can help ensure that diverse candidates are given a fair chance. By implementing these measures, organisations can develop a workforce that is adaptable, innovative, and resilient, ensuring sustainable success and growth.

"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.

Women get unfairly passed over for promotions. This leads to a tough choice: Play the game to move up or try to change the game and risk not advancing as quickly. Here are my thoughts as a leader who has seen this many times. As a man, my ability to advise women on navigating these challenges is limited, but to ignore the situation would be worse. I will offer what I can. Women are passed over for reasons including: 1. Conscious Bias- Not believing that women can hold leadership positions or that men are inherently more fit to lead. 2. Unconscious Bias- Promote or invest in the growth of men over women without realizing it. 3. Gender roles- Often bearing more responsibilities relating to the home and childcare. This slows career advancement. 4. Hidden Expectations- As a society, we look up to folks with deep voices and larger physical stature. These reasons present women with the dilemma of conforming to the game or trying to change it. Conforming to the game looks like interrupting others, prioritizing career over home life/child care, talking sports, or drinking as a way to “fit in”, etc. Of course, plenty of women enjoy sports and drinking. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about doing it as a way to conform to an archetype that you see being rewarded. The other option is challenging the system and advocating for fair treatment. The advantage of this is that it helps to change things for the better. The disadvantage is that it may hurt your own chances for rapid growth. The truth is I do not know of many cases where a woman who challenges the game moves up as quickly as the one who plays it. So, some things that women can do to avoid this double bind are: 1. Seek companies with more women in leadership. 2. Work for other women when possible, and learn from how they lead (“playing the game” vs. being engaged in changing it? Both can be learned from). 3. Work for companies/people who advocate for women. As men, we can: 1. Acknowledge and confront our biases, conscious and unconscious. 2. Fight for women and realize that their journey has been different from ours. 3. Refuse to tolerate misogynistic behavior. Finally, another thing that we as men can do is refrain from engaging in “whataboutism” when we are engaged in these discussions. Yes, some women try to use their gender to manipulate. However, the vast majority of women do not do this. Yes, some women falsely claim harassment or are looking to find offense anywhere they can. This is extremely rare and these few do not invalidate the needs of the rest. Yes, some women cover up for, perpetuate, or look the other way in cases of bad male behavior. These instances do not invalidate the larger problem. So, in this discussion and others, don’t throw out these points to distract from the real conversation. I welcome all comments discussing this topic seriously. Any comments that are intentionally offensive or antagonistic will be deleted.

Leaders' overreliance on "DEI programming" is one of the biggest barriers in the way of real progress toward achieving #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion. Do you know where these events came from? The lunch and learns, cultural heritage celebrations, book clubs, and the like? Historically, these were all events put on by volunteer advocates and activists from marginalized communities who had little to no access to formal power and yet were still trying to carve out spaces for themselves in hostile environments. For leaders to hire figureheads to "manage" these volunteer efforts, refuse to resource them, and then take credit for the meager impact made nonetheless is nothing short of exploitation. If your workplace's "DEI Function" is a single director-level employee with an executive assistant who spends all day trying to coax more and more events out of your employee resource groups? I'm sorry to say that you are part of the problem. Effective DEI work is change management, plain and simple. It's cross-functional by necessity, requiring the ongoing exercise of power by executive leadership across all functions, the guidance and follow-through of middle management, the insight of data analysts and communicators, and the energy and momentum of frontline workers. There is no reality where "optional fill-in-the-blank history month celebrations" organized by overworked volunteers, no matter how many or how flashy, can serve as a substitute. If your workplace actually wants to achieve DEI, resource it like you would any other organization-level goal. 🎯 Hire a C-Level executive responsible for it or add the job responsibility to an existing cross-functional executive (e.g., Chief People Officer) 🎯 Give that leader cross-functional authority, mandate, headcount, and resources to work with other executives and managers across the organization on culture, process, policy, and behavior change 🎯 Set expectations with all other leaders that DEI-related outcomes will be included in their evaluation and responsibility (e.g., every department leader is responsible for their employees' belonging scores and culture of respect in their department). 🎯 Encourage responsible boundary-setting and scoping of volunteer engagement, ensuring that if Employee Resource Groups and DEI Councils/Committees want to put on events, it is because they are energized and supported to do so—not because they feel forced to run on fumes because it's the only way any impact will be made. It's long past time for our workplaces' DEI strategies to modernize away from the volunteer exploitation of "DEI programming" toward genuine organizational transformation. What steps will your leaders take to be a part of this future?

In 2025, AI is still suggesting lower salaries for women doing the same work. We ran a simple test: same prompt, same job title, same years of experience. The only variable? Changing "he" to "she." The result? A consistent salary gap in AI-generated recommendations. No algorithm defines your worth - You do. This isn't just a technical error—it's algorithmic bias in action. These tools learn from historical data that reflects decades of pay inequity. And now they're perpetuating it at scale. What we can do: → Audit the AI tools we use in HR and talent management → Train teams to recognize and question biased outputs → Ensure compensation frameworks are based on role, skill, and impact—not gender → Advocate for transparency in algorithmic decision-making Technology should advance equity, not encode inequality. If your organization uses AI in hiring, compensation, or performance management, it's time to ask: what biases are we automating?

"You're overqualified." Translation: "We think you'll leave, want too much money, or won't take direction." Maria heard this 15 times. VP experience. 52 years old. "Too senior" for everything. Then she flipped the script. Literally. Her new response: "I appreciate that. Can I share why this role is exactly where I want to be?" Then she'd say: "I've been the VP managing 50 people and $20M budgets. It was rewarding but exhausting. What excites me now is going deep on strategy without the politics. Your role offers exactly that - impact without the bureaucracy. And honestly? I've made my money. I'm optimizing for fulfillment now, not titles." 3 offers in 4 weeks. Here's the psychology: Employers fear 3 things about "overqualified" candidates: 1. Flight risk (you'll leave when something better comes) 2. Salary expectations (you'll want VP money) 3. Management issues (you won't respect younger bosses) Address all three directly: "I'm intentionally stepping back from VP life. I've done the 70-hour weeks. Your role lets me use my expertise at a sustainable pace. As for salary, I'm looking at total compensation and culture, not just base. And taking direction? I've been seeking mentorship my whole career. Some of my best bosses were 15 years younger." One client used this exact script. Hired at asking salary. Still there 2 years later. Happier than ever. "Overqualified" is nonsense. And, it's an invitation to address their real concerns. Have you tried directly addressing the "overqualified" label? Tired of hearing 'overqualified'? My team helps experienced professionals reposition their story so employers see value, not risk. Book a call using the blue link above. #LinkedInTopVoices #LITrendingTopics #Careers

Hello LinkedIn ! Imagine sitting in a job interview for a multinational company and being asked: "Are you planning to get married?" "Do you intend to have children? Now, ask yourself: Would a man be asked the same questions? Despite all the progress we claim to have made in workplace equality, these intrusive and discriminatory questions still exist. They send a clear message: a woman’s career potential is evaluated not by her skills, experience, or ambition but by her personal life choices. The Cost of Ambition: What Are Women Expected to Sacrifice? For women in male-dominated fields, like oil and gas, the reality is even harsher. What kind of job requires a freshly married woman to be sent to the field for seven or more weeks without flexibility? Is this about business necessity, or is it a failure to accommodate diverse career paths? I've been witnessing some sad stories of incompetent managers forcing a freshly married woman to stay in the field more than here rotation schedule basically "6 weeks" in the cost of her own mariage !!!!! The real issue is NOT women’s ability to handle demanding roles. Women have proven, time and again, their competence in high-pressure environments. The real problem is the systemic unwillingness to adapt workplace policies to support employees regardless of gender who want both a successful career and a fulfilling personal life. Men are rarely asked about their marital status or parental plans. Why? Because corporate structures were built with their careers in mind. But when a woman steps into the same space, she is expected to prove that she won’t “disrupt” the system with her life choices. Companies love to highlight their Diversity & Inclusion initiatives. But true inclusivity is not about hiring women just to meet quotas it’s about ensuring that they don’t have to justify their personal lives to keep their careers. If we want real progress, we must shift the conversation: - Stop penalizing women for wanting both a career and a family. - Stop questioning their commitment to work based on their personal choices. - Start designing policies that support all employees, men and women, in balancing career ambitions with personal fulfillment. This is not just a women’s issue it’s a workplace fairness issue. And it’s time for companies to catch up. Let’s break the cycle. Let’s demand change. #Diversity #Inclusion #WomenInLeadership #BreakingBarriers #WorkplaceEquality #WomenInSTEM #WomenInEnergy #WomenInTech #GenderEquality #EmpowerWomen #CareerGrowth #WomenInBusiness #WomenInOilAndGas #WorkLifeBalance #EqualOpportunities #Leadership #RepresentationMatters

AI systems built without women's voices miss half the world and actively distort reality for everyone. On International Women's Day - and every day - this truth demands our attention. After more than two decades working at the intersection of technological innovation and human rights, I've observed a consistent pattern: systems designed without inclusive input inevitably encode the inequalities of the world we have today, incorporating biases in data, algorithms, and even policy. Building technology that works requires our shared participation as the foundation of effective innovation. The data is sobering: women represent only 30% of the AI workforce and a mere 12% of AI research and development positions according to UNESCO's Gender and AI Outlook. This absence shapes the technology itself. And a UNESCO study on Large Language Models (LLMs) found persistent gender biases - where female names were disproportionately linked to domestic roles, while male names were associated with leadership and executive careers. UNESCO's @women4EthicalAI initiative, led by the visionary and inspiring Gabriela Ramos and Dr. Alessandra Sala, is fighting this pattern by developing frameworks for non-discriminatory AI and pushing for gender equity in technology leadership. Their work extends the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, a powerful global standard centering human rights in AI governance. Today's decision is whether AI will transform our world into one that replicates today's inequities or helps us build something better. Examine your AI teams and processes today. Where are the gaps in representation affecting your outcomes? Document these blind spots, set measurable inclusion targets, and build accountability systems that outlast good intentions. The technology we create reflects who creates it - and gives us a path to a better world. #InternationalWomensDay #AI #GenderBias #EthicalAI #WomenInAI #UNESCO #ArtificialIntelligence The Patrick J. McGovern Foundation Mariagrazia Squicciarini Miriam Vogel Vivian Schiller Karen Gill Mary Rodriguez, MBA Erika Quada Mathilde Barge Gwen Hotaling Yolanda Botti-Lodovico

when we started leap.club, we believed in a very clean, almost comforting idea of progress. if women were competent, supported and given access to the right rooms, the world would change for us. so we built those rooms. we built a community of thousands of women, ran masterclasses, curated networks, built courses, launched a jobs platform with highly vetted companies and created physical spaces where women could learn, grow and finally feel that they belonged. i genuinely believed that if we just removed the structural friction - the lack of access, the lack of mentorship, the lack of opportunity - everything would shift. well, it didn’t. not in the way i expected atleast. over six years of building leap, and having a front-row seat to the many incredible moves so many women were making, i still watched some of the most capable women i’ve ever met stay stuck. i watched them do exceptional work, carry entire teams on their shoulders and still struggle to move into positions of real power. that’s when the most uncomfortable lesson slowly landed for me: competence does not automatically translate into power. in this piece, i write about the good girl trap, the myth we’re sold about ambition, how conditioning shapes our careers, and what actually moves the needle when women want influence, authority, and real leverage. if you’ve ever done everything ‘right’ and still felt invisible - this one is for you :)