Ethical Recruitment Practices

"The language of #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion might change, but impactful work will not." This was the hopeful refrain of many as anti-DEI backlash and political attacks ramped up against this critical work. But as the months drew on, I wasn't seeing any compelling new language. Leaders were watching and waiting, hoping that a new framework would organically emerge that could protect our impact while being more defensible against political attacks. So I started creating that framework myself. The FAIR Framework, standing for Fairness, Access, Inclusion, and Representation, officially launches today in a new feature article for the Harvard Business Review. I wanted to create something that could build on the best of effective DEI work, discard the performative noise, and be firmly comprehensible and defensible by any leader. And after countless hours of research, it boiled down to 4 tenets: 🎯 Outcomes-Based, focused on measurable results rather than flimsy signals of commitment. 🌐 Systems-Focused, using change management to shift workplace systems, rather than surface-level awareness. 🔗 Coalition-Driven, seeking to engage the collective rather than delegating the burden of blame or change onto cliques. 🌱 Win-Win, communicating the benefits of healthier organizations for everyone, rejecting zero-sum framing. FAIR work looks like challenging discrimination in pay, hiring, and promotions, and ensuring that workplace systems set everyone up to succeed. FAIR work looks like removing barriers to participation, using universal design principles to build for all, and including users in every design process. FAIR work looks like creating a workplace culture that recognizes people's differences and ensures a high standard of respect, value, and safety for all. FAIR work looks like participatory decision-making, transparent communications, and strong track records of promises kept and trust maintained. I designed FAIR to be something any leader and practitioner can use—so long as your work meets the core tenets. If I'm being frank, however, a good deal of work calling itself "DEI" does not pass the test. The feel-good trainings with no impact measurement, the never-ending coaching services trying to "fix" the individual but never the systems holding them back, the blame-and-shame strategies that trade a moment of vindication for months of backlash; if we are to survive this moment, we cannot take this kind of "DEI" work with us. I put this framework out into the world with a healthy dose of pride and anxiety. It is far from perfect. It will certainly evolve as practitioners iterate and improve on it. But I truly believe that this is exactly the kind of rigorous, defensible framework leaders need right now to weather this storm and emerge with their impact intact. I hope you find it useful as you seek to do the same. A free gift link is in the comments—please share if it resonates.

Today, a recruiter invited me to a call about a potential role I was very interested in learning more about. But, less than an hour before the meeting, I received a sudden calendar update: “Fred from Fireflies will join to record and transcribe the conversation.” - No prior request for consent. - No explanation of how the recording would be stored. - No clear details on how my data might be used. What should have been a straightforward conversation instantly shifted into a scramble to protect my privacy (voice, image, and data). Recording an interview, without clear, advance permission, erodes trust before the first question is even asked. Consent is a deliberate agreement that lets everyone show up prepared and comfortable. This is an ethical issue. No doubt, an AI note-taker could be valuable to this recruiter. But, they also raise questions about data retention, confidentiality, and intellectual property. A candidate discussing career history, research, or sensitive client details deserves to know exactly how those records will be used and who will have access. If you truly aim to build an inclusive hiring process, plan for ethical recording practices from the first email. - State your intentions. - Outline how the file will be stored and data retention policies. - Offer alternative accommodations. - Secure explicit consent well before the call. Anything less feels like surveillance disguised as efficiency. How are you making sure your use of AI tools in interviews respects privacy, consent, and accessibility? *Note, I am fortunate to be able to walk away from situations that violate my privacy, and I did exactly that in this case. I recognize that many candidates cannot afford to decline and must navigate similar scenarios without the option to stay no. If you are in that position, I see you and stand with you. #CyberSecurity #DataPrivacy #Consent

I’m genuinely surprised (and disappointed) that companies are still asking illegal questions during interviews—especially to seasoned HR professionals who know better. Recently, in an interview for a leadership role, I was asked by multiple executives: ➡ If I was married. ➡ If I had children. ➡ How old my children were. The first time, I gracefully redirected by reaffirming my willingness to relocate if the opportunity was right. But when another executive asked the same, I couldn’t let it slide. I pointed out, “You need to be careful with those types of questions.” His response? Defensiveness, followed by an attempt to justify it by saying he wanted to understand the family impact of working for the company. 💡 Let’s be clear: If it doesn’t directly relate to a candidate’s skills or experience, don’t ask. Candidates are adults—they’ve already weighed the family and personal impacts before even stepping into the interview. Asking these questions isn’t just inappropriate; it’s dismissive. It suggests the company thinks it has to “decide” for the candidate, which is not only unnecessary but also unprofessional. ⚡ And no, I didn’t get the offer. Was it because I held firm on my salary expectations, or because I called out the illegal questions? Either way, I’m proud to say I stayed true to myself, spoke up, and didn’t compromise on what I know is right. If we, as HR leaders, don’t model ethical standards, how can we expect it from anyone else? ❗ Note to job seekers: Know your worth, know the rules, and don’t hesitate to stand up for both. ❗

Innovative Employer Branding by Apple. To showcase progress on their sustainability goals♻️ Instead of a boring CEO letter… Or A dry 30-page corporate report… They opted for something more creative🎬 A few things that stood out to me: 1. Authenticity I love how Tim Cook plays a lead role in the video instead of a random stock footage actor playing big-shot corporate exec. Having the actual CEO give a detailed breakdown of progress on ESG goals demonstrates accountability, which is often nonexistent in corporate. 2. Tone A light touch of comedy but still staying true to the corporate theme of a board meeting. This sets the tone that these social issues are being taken seriously and does not detract from the key message. 3. Evidence Is it really an Apple campaign without a cheeky little product launch? But the best part is that the product backs up everything they’ve said - the first-ever carbon-neutral Apple watch. 4. Diversity & Inclusion The cast selection from face value was diverse from an ethnicity and age perspective, which is refreshing for a corporate marketing campaign. Plus, mother nature is Octavia Spencer, so we love to see it 🖤 — →Great hook →Engaging pace →Provides context →Straight to the point →Not bogged down in jargon →Clear message + key takeaway An innovative employer brand consistently moving with the times👏🏾 Who wouldn’t want to work for a company that approaches marketing like this? What do y’all think?

Don't just focus on what you say. Focus on what you do. Microsoft just settled a $14 million probe for illegally penalising workers who took medical or family-care leave. Just two years earlier, it was lauded for it's employer friendly and market leading family and medical leave policies. What gives? It highlights a critical issue for many employers: brand dissonance. The gap between a companies employer brand and their people experience. 🌟 It's easy to speak to the benefits you're trying to create in order to compel candidates to join you. 🛑 But, what are those same companies doing to ensure the experience they speak of is genuine? Big companies like Microsoft are easy to criticise — but they are expected to uphold higher standards. They possess the resources to ensure robust checks and balances. But even giants like Microsoft can miss the mark on employee needs. Companies need to assess their policies and programs to ensure they're having the intended effect. In Microsofts case: • Were the policies adopted ✅ • Was it having a positive impact on their representation ❌ Don't just develop policies for the brand you can tout to candidates. Ensure what your program is hoping to achieve is actually being lived. A strong employer brand should reflect a positive people experience. If it doesn’t, your companies credibility is at stake. How do you think companies can bridge the gap between brand and reality?

"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.

Dear Talent Acquisition and HR leaders, let’s be honest. 🫡 When someone decides to change their job, it’s rarely a small step. For most people, it’s one of the most significant decisions of their career and their life. Yet, we still hear the myth that “employer branding is about shiny campaigns or photos on your LinkedIn pages.” The reality looks very different: People want to join organizations where they can truly make an impact, grow, and learn. Your EVP is the secret sauce that makes recruiting conversations more meaningful and engaging with candidates. It’s not just an add-on, it’s a core ingredient. Compensation matters, but it’s not the only currency; it's also about leadership, culture, everyday experiences, and learning opportunities, which weigh just as heavily, if not more. What builds your reputation as an employer isn’t just marketing; it’s the everyday experiences of your employees that travel by word of mouth! And here’s the kicker: a strong employer brand attracts great talent, while a weak one silently drives them away. Are you driving to define that narrative or let others build one? If we, as TA leaders, get this "first principle" right —that employer branding is about real value for employees and candidates —everything else becomes easier. Employer Branding is as core to recruiting, HR as any other process. Make it count and work for you! Question to ponder: "Are we making employer branding the core ingredient in our strategy—or are we still treating it as garnish on the side?" #employerbranding #talentbranding #recruitmentmarketing #TalentAcquisition #Recruitment

Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) have done more damage to recruitment than good. They were sold to companies as the holy grail of hiring: efficiency, streamlined processes, "talent mapping" (seriously, does anyone actually know what that means?!). But instead of finding talent, they've turned the whole process into an industrial-scale bias machine. Why I say this: - Keyword Bingo: Candidates now write CVs for robots, not humans. If you don't sprinkle in the "magic words", the system spits you out before anyone with an actual brain sees your profile. Great candidates are lost because they didn't say "stakeholder engagement" 17 times. - The Application Counter of Doom: ATS systems proudly flag how many times a candidate has applied to your company. Talent Acquisition Specialists see "applied 7 times" and suddenly it means: unemployable. No thought that maybe, just maybe, the previous hiring manager missed a trick, wrote a vague job spec, or couldn't be arsed to read the CV. Nope, the machine says "7" so clearly the human must be worthless. - Bias on Steroids: Some ATS platforms allow filtering by things like university attended, location, or arbitrary "years of experience". That's not removing bias, that's giving recruiters a prettier dashboard to automate their bias. - Formatting Crimes: God forbid your CV has an unusual font, a table, or a creative layout. ATS will scramble it into modern art and then reject you for being "incomplete". So much for valuing creativity. - Ghosting Made Easy: ATS systems don't just make it easy to apply, they make it even easier to ignore candidates at scale. You don't even have to open an application to reject it. With one click, 200 hopefuls go straight into the black hole. Efficiency! And yet, companies cry "talent shortage". No. What we have is a shortage of common sense. Because here's the thing: recruitment is, at its core, about humans making human decisions about other humans. You cannot automate judgment, gut feel, or the ability to spot raw potential. But sure, let's keep rejecting brilliant candidates because they applied one too many times or forgot to bold "Agile" on page 2. That'll definitely fix the skills gap. ATS isn't helping companies hire better. It's just helping them reject faster. *

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

Amazon-to-Google-to-Amazon #a2g2a thought of the day: Removing Biases via The Dancing Crab Emoji 🦀 on Google Meet One thing I really liked at Google was that the culture had a lot of deliberate mechanisms to identify and mitigate/prevent biases. For example, in a Google loop the interviewers did not make a decision about whether somebody would get an offer or not. They would write a summary of their interview, and a Hiring Committee (HC) would read it and decide, without actually even having met the person. In their writeup the interviewers could NOT disclose a person’s gender identity and had to refer to The Candidate as "TC" instead of "he" or "she" or "they." Another mechanism, during performance reviews and promotion decisions meetings, was Google Meet’s Dancing Crab Emoji 🦀. Not sure what the origins of this was, but the idea was to have a designated Bias Buster person in the room. The Bias Buster’s job was to click on Google Meet’s Crab Emoji 🦀 if a discussion was venturing into bias territory. The cute little crab would comically dance sidewalks across the entire Google Meet screen. The entire thing was so ridiculous that it forced people to stop talking and smile and reset. While identifying biases is everybody’s job, having one person that understood biases well and could point them out consistently was a good mechanism for educating others, myself included. We would take turns. And the actual process was much friendlier than a person having to interrupt others all the time - it always forced a smile and diffused tension - it was disarming. Here's some biases the crab pointed out: "Affinity bias" is the tendency to favor people who share similar interests, backgrounds and experiences with us. "Halo Effect" is  the overall impression of a person based on a single characteristic. This can lead to making positive assumptions about other qualities of the person. And "Horns effect" is the opposite. "Proximity bias" is an unconscious tendency where people in positions of power or leadership tend to favor those who are physically closer to them. "Recency bias" gives greater importance to the most recent event instead of looking at things more holistically.