How to build an inclusive hiring process that attracts overlooked talent

Executive overview

Most hiring processes filter out strong candidates before they get a fair look — through biased language, degree requirements, and interview formats that reward familiarity over capability. The fix isn't a single policy change; it's a set of deliberate design choices at each stage of the process.

Ruchika Tulshyan outlines practical interventions — from job listing language to interview structure — that reduce bias without sacrificing quality.

The gap between good intentions and inclusive outcomes is closed by process design, not individual goodwill.

Why transparency in the hiring process matters

• Candidates who lack professional networks often apply without understanding unwritten rules — what to wear, how to present, what "confident but humble" looks like in practice.
• Not acknowledging this gap reinforces the myth of meritocracy and disadvantages first-generation professionals disproportionately.
• Making the process explicit and transparent levels the playing field before the first application is submitted.

Writing inclusive job listings

• An equal opportunity statement that actively invites underrepresented candidates — not just pledges non-discrimination — materially increases applications from all backgrounds, per Textio research.
• "We will not discriminate" and "We are seeking you out" signal very different things to a candidate from a marginalised group.
• Certain words are socially gendered: "rockstar," "ninja," "fearless," "aggressive," "assertive" are terms many women have been explicitly socialised to disassociate from themselves.
• Replacing those terms with language around communication, collaboration, and growth mindset increases applications from women without reducing applications from men — it is not zero-sum.
• Small language changes at the listing stage have an outsized effect compared to later-stage interventions.

Removing degree requirements

• Harvard Business School research found millions of US jobs requiring a degree were already being performed by non-degree holders — the requirement was filtering out qualified candidates, not raising quality.
• Degree requirements compound socioeconomic and racial inequity: access to four-year universities, and specifically to elite universities, is unevenly distributed.
• Shifting the listing to describe skills and traits needed to complete the job — rather than credentials — requires more upfront clarity but opens the candidate pool significantly.
• Several large employers (Merck, IBM, Accenture, UPS) have publicly moved away from blanket degree requirements across many roles.

Audition-style screening to reduce name and identity bias

• Résumé-screening studies across multiple countries consistently show that recognisably Anglo-Saxon names receive more callbacks than equally qualified candidates with Asian, African American, or Muslim-identifying names.
• Blind résumé review — scrubbing gender, race, and ethnicity identifiers before screening — removes that bias at the first filter.
• Audition-style tasks (completing work relevant to the role, with identifiers removed) surface actual job capability rather than interview fluency or social comfort.
• This approach has particular traction in technical hiring, where discrete tasks map well to on-the-job work.

Problems with panel interviews

• Panel interviews make candidates who are "different" from the interviewers feel unwelcome before the conversation starts — reducing performance and signalling low belonging.
• Interviewers in panels are susceptible to real-time social influence: a colleague's visible reaction or a side-chat comment can bias individual scoring before deliberation begins.
• Homogeneous panels — common at managerial and leadership levels — send an immediate signal about who belongs at the organisation.
• Individual interviews with separate scoring, then deliberation, reduce these effects.

Reframing "culture fit"

• "Culture fit" screening often functions as a proxy for sameness — favouring candidates who feel familiar rather than candidates who can do the job.
• Questions like "would I want to be stuck in an airport with this person?" measure social comfort, not job performance.
• A more useful frame: would I want to be stuck in an airport with this person? Measure social comfort, not job performance.
• Interviewers who are transparent about where the organisation falls short — and invite the candidate's perspective on how to improve — create a more honest and useful exchange.
• The interview is a two-way assessment; treating it as one-way concentrates power in a way that systematically disadvantages candidates from underrepresented groups.

Shifting the mindset: privilege as responsibility

• A common assumption in DEI work is that people with power and privilege resist sharing it.
• Tulshyan has changed her view: she now encounters more leaders who recognise that lack of diversity harms their organisations too — and that co-creating a more equitable environment benefits everyone.
• Progress depends less on waiting for culture to shift and more on individual leaders choosing to act within their span of control.