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.

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

Inclusion isn’t a one-time initiative or a single program—it’s a continuous commitment that must be embedded across every stage of the employee lifecycle. By taking deliberate steps, organizations can create workplaces where all employees feel valued, respected, and empowered to succeed. Here’s how we can make a meaningful impact at each stage: 1. Attract Build inclusive employer branding and equitable hiring practices. Ensure job postings use inclusive language and focus on skills rather than unnecessary credentials. Broaden recruitment pipelines by partnering with diverse professional organizations, schools, and networks. Showcase your commitment to inclusion in external messaging with employee stories that reflect diversity. 2. Recruit Eliminate bias and promote fair candidate evaluation. Use structured interviews and standardized evaluation rubrics to reduce bias. Train recruiters and hiring managers on unconscious bias and inclusive hiring practices. Implement blind resume reviews or AI tools to focus on qualifications, not identifiers. 3. Onboard Create an inclusive onboarding experience. Design onboarding materials that reflect a diverse workplace culture. Pair new hires with mentors or buddies from Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) to foster belonging. Offer inclusion training early to set the tone for inclusivity from day one. 4. Develop Provide equitable opportunities for growth. Ensure leadership programs and career development resources are accessible to underrepresented employees. Regularly review training, mentorship, and promotion programs to address any disparities. Offer specific development opportunities, such as allyship training or workshops on cultural competency. 5. Engage Foster a culture of inclusion. Actively listen to employee feedback through pulse surveys, focus groups, and open forums. Support ERGs and create platforms for marginalized voices to influence organizational policies. Recognize and celebrate diverse perspectives, cultures, and contributions in the workplace. 6. Retain Address barriers to equity and belonging. Conduct pay equity audits and address discrepancies to ensure fairness. Create flexible policies that accommodate diverse needs, including caregiving responsibilities, religious practices, and accessibility. Provide regular inclusion updates to build trust and demonstrate progress. 7. Offboard Learn and grow from employee transitions. Use exit interviews to uncover potential inequities and areas for improvement. Analyze trends in attrition to identify and address any patterns of exclusion or bias. Maintain relationships with alumni and invite them to stay engaged through inclusive networks. Embedding inclusion across the employee lifecycle is not just the right thing to do—it’s a strategic imperative that drives innovation, engagement, and organizational success. By making these steps intentional, companies can create environments where everyone can thrive.

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.

Efficiency has never been a moral defense for poor hiring, yet we are seeing a massive ripple effect across the industry following the class action lawsuit against Eightfold AI. The core of the issue is not just about whether AI works. It is about the enriched talent profiles created behind the scenes through data and inferences that candidates did not provide and cannot even see. In our desperate rush to save time and filter through the noise of high applicant volumes, we have moved from assistive tools to decisive systems that even the recruiters using them do not fully understand. We have seen this movie before with informal social media background checks, but today’s tech does not just replicate those instincts; it industrializes them. The hard truth is that if you cannot explain how a hiring decision was reached, you should not be making it. This lawsuit serves as a loud reminder that hiring is not ad targeting and candidates are not just datasets to be manipulated by an opaque algorithm. We need to stop hiding behind the "the system flagged them" excuse and start demanding a higher bar for transparency and accountability. Innovation is vital, but it must support human judgment rather than bypass it. We do not just choose our HR tech; we choose our standards. It is time we chose clarity over shortcuts. Read the full breakdown in my latest LinkedIn newsletter.

I'm not going to discuss gamergate 2. Instead, let's talk about why we are lacking diverse voices + steps forward! There's no quick fix to diversifying an industry. It takes a lot of looking inwards at hiring processes, workforce planning, and the spaces we are creating to our people. But when we look specifically at recruitment, we can see a couple of significant barriers so let's break it down: ⚠️Years of Experience vs. Depth of Experience/Potential There's a significant focus on the number of years someone has been working in the industry. Since we know underrepresented groups tend to only apply when they match every single job requirement, and overly represented groups often apply even if they meet just some of the qualifications. Placing too much weight on years of experience, instead of depth of experience or potential might leave out individuals who could introduce new ideas and drive innovation within the industry. ⚠️ The need for AAA Experience: AAA studios are well-known for their large-scale projects and high budgets but have historically shown lower diversity within their teams. Depending on this experience as a major hiring criteria continues the lack of representation. It fails to recognize the talent and capabilities of those who might have honed their skills in smaller studios or through independent game development. However, while those two issues are recruitment related, they are too big for just one department. And as everything in games, we do not function without collaborating. ➡️ If you are part of Senior Leadership: •Rethink hiring policies to focus less on years of experience and more on potential, skills, and what the candidate can bring to the team. •Communicate these policy changes throughout the organization to ensure everyone's on board with a more inclusive approach. ➡️ If you work in HR: •Work closely with the Talent Acquisition team to revise job ads, highlighting the importance of transferable skills and growth potential over just experience. •Develop programs that help integrate and support employees from diverse backgrounds right from their onboarding. ➡️ For Learning & Development Departments: •Set up development plans and mentorship opportunities specifically designed to nurture mid-level talent, helping them grow within the company. •Offer training sessions focused on recognizing and tackling unconscious bias and microaggressions, contributing to a more inclusive work environment. ➡️ If you are an EDI Specialist: •Keep tabs on how effective these new hiring strategies are in fostering a more diverse and inclusive workforce. •Engage with external consultants to ensure the company is following best practices. 💬 What else would you add?? --- 📣 Follow #RethinkRecruitment and ring the 🔔 to read about: 📙 #GameDev #Recruitment Best Practices 🔎 #JobHunting, #CareerAdvice & #RecruiterTips 👁️ Bird's Eye View & the #ELSH ⏩ https://entrylevel.games/ 🌟 Opinions are very much my own™️

AI can cut hiring time by 80% (McKinsey & Company), but at what cost? Automation is faster, smarter, more efficient, but if we’re not careful, it’s also more biased, less human, and dangerously flawed. As a result, HR leaders now hold a double-edged sword. + Use AI wisely, and it transforms recruitment.  + Use it blindly, and it reinforces the very problems we’re trying to solve. According to McKinsey, AI-driven tools have increased recruiting efficiency by 80%, yet 76% of job seekers say the hiring experience impacts whether they accept an offer. Speed matters.  But so does fairness.  So does trust. Because efficiency means nothing if candidates feel reduced to a data point. AI is only as fair as the data it learns from. And if that data carries bias? AI will replicate it, at scale. I still remember an instance from two years back: a candidate with an unconventional career path, a late-degree switch, a few gaps, non-traditional experience was filtered out by an AI-automated software. On paper, they weren’t a fit. In reality, they were exactly what the company needed. But imagine how many great hires are being lost because no one is watching? AI can analyse resumes, predict job fit, and streamline hiring like never before. But it cannot replace the human judgment, emotional intelligence, and ethical responsibility that recruiters bring to the table. So, how do we use AI without losing the human element? ✅ Train AI to spot bias, not amplify it: AI learns from past data. If that data carries bias, AI will replicate it. Audit algorithms. Diversify data sets. Ensure AI isn’t just fast, but fair. ✅ Use AI to enhance decision-making, not replace it: Predictive analytics can tell you who to interview. But only humans can assess cultural fit, build trust, and make final hiring decisions. ✅ Create transparency in hiring: Candidates should know when AI is evaluating them. If an algorithm rejects someone, recruiters should intervene, not blindly trust the machine. ✅ Prioritise candidate experience: Chatbots and automation can provide instant updates, but real conversations build relationships. The best hires don’t just want a job, they want to feel valued. AI isn’t the future of recruitment. Humans + AI is. The goal isn’t to replace recruiters, it’s to empower them to be better, faster, and fairer. Because at the end of the day, great hiring isn’t just about efficiency. It’s about people. #aiinhr #ethicalhiring #hrleadership Puneet Chandok, Navnit Singh, Rishi Khandelwal, Shailja Dutt

Why traditional hiring rewards the wrong behaviors. Most hiring processes are designed with good intent. They are meant to identify performance, judgement and leadership capability. Yet the structure of many interviews ends up favouring something else entirely. They favour polish over proof. A candidate who can think quickly, speak confidently and build rapport in a 45 minute panel has an advantage. None of those qualities are irrelevant, but they are not the same as delivering a multi year transformation, stabilising a drifting function, or lifting commercial performance under pressure. Hiring is an exercise in recognizing the right signals. If you are not deliberate about which signals you value, you will default to the easiest ones to observe. Confidence. Fluency. Energy. Certainty. These are visible and comfortable. They create momentum in a room and feel like progress. But they are not always predictive. The candidate who pauses before answering, asks a clarifying question, or reframes the problem can feel slower. The one who talks in trade offs, risk and sequencing rather than bold ambition can feel less exciting. Yet those behaviours are often much closer to what the role actually requires. This is where both sides need more precision. Hiring managers should be clear in their own minds about the signals that truly matter. What does good look like in twelve months. What behaviours would increase the probability of that outcome. What evidence would demonstrate those behaviours in action. Without that clarity, interviews drift toward likeability and momentum rather than substance. Candidates have the same responsibility in reverse. Trying to be broadly impressive usually creates noise. Listing every responsibility, tool and achievement might feel comprehensive, but it does not create a sharp signal. A better approach is to decide which signals you want to send. If the role is about cost discipline, talk in measurable savings and improved margin. If it is about delivery stability, talk about predictability, reduced rework and hitting deadlines. If it is about growth, talk about revenue, speed and market impact. Do not describe everything. Emphasise what matters for this decision. Signal beats noise. When hiring managers are explicit about what they are looking for, and candidates are intentional about what they are demonstrating, the process becomes more aligned and far less performative. That is when hiring starts to reward behaviors that actually translate into results, rather than those that simply win the room.

Let’s get real—hiring someone isn’t the same as making a good decision. In fact, sometimes it’s the exact opposite. Too often, companies treat hiring like checking off a box. Got a warm body to fill the role? Great! 😣 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗵 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵: just because you’ve made a hire doesn’t mean you’ve made a smart move. And the data backs this up. Leadership IQ found that nearly 𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗳 𝗼𝗳 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 (46%) 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 18 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀, with 89% of those failures due to a lack of soft skills or poor alignment with company culture—factors most managers don't know how to effectively assess or simply overlook because they are focusing on hard skills. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝗱, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a bad hire can cost you up to 30% of that employee’s first-year earnings. For a mid-level hire earning €70,000, that’s €21,000 down the drain 💸💸💸 —not counting the ripple effects on team morale, productivity and of course profit. Making a good hiring decision isn’t just about filling a role; it’s about ensuring the person is the right fit for the long haul. To make good hiring decisions you need to: 📌 𝗡𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀: Stop winging it with vague job descriptions. Be specific. Harvard Business Review says companies with structured hiring processes are 50% more likely to get it right. Define what success looks like and hire for those outcomes—every single time. 📌 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗕𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗼𝗿: Don’t kid yourself—your biases are costing you. McKinsey found that diverse teams are 35% more likely to outperform their peers. Want to win? Use diverse panels and structured interviews to strip bias out of your decision-making. 📌 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴: If you’re basing your hiring decision solely on an interview, you’re doing it wrong. Gallup tells us that candidates who fit culturally are 27% more likely to stick around. Pay attention to how they interact outside the interview room—get the full picture. Hiring isn’t just a task to tick off your list. It’s about making decisions that will impact the future of your business. So, if you’re still treating hiring like a formality, it’s time to wake up. There is nothing more core to the success of your business than bringing on the right people. If you agree, please repost ♻️ and follow me for more insights.

As AI tools advance rapidly, it's important for employers to understand where the ethical and legal boundaries lie. The EU AI Act has taken a firm stance: AI systems that infer personality or emotions from biometric data — including face-based personality prediction — are prohibited or classified as high-risk. The legislation recognises the profound risks these tools pose to fairness, discrimination, privacy, and human dignity. In Australia, no equivalent protections currently exist. This means technologies that would be unlawful in Europe could still enter the Australian recruitment market — without the guardrails needed to prevent discrimination or algorithmic bias. As employers explore AI for hiring, screening, or talent management, now is the time to stay alert: —Be cautious of AI tools claiming to “predict personality” or “assess fit” from images or videos. —Demand transparency, validation evidence and bias testing from vendors. —Ensure any AI used in HR aligns with ethical standards — even if legislation lags behind. Until stronger regulation arrives in Australia, the responsibility rests with employers to safeguard their people and their processes from high-risk AI. Join the growing community of multidisciplinary leaders for inclusive and ethical AI at ada.ai.