These are the hypocrisies and bias that exist in modern hiring practices

A little while ago, I came across an article on a reputable news platform that alarmed me to the point of writing a rebuttal to the editors. After I submitted my rebuttal, the editors attempted to revise their article to appear more empathetic toward job seekers. However, despite their efforts, the advice remained fundamentally problematic and disingenuous.

This piece was about why individuals fail to secure jobs. The author suggested some truly bizarre advice on interviews, cover letters, and résumés, some of which were as follows:

• You asked for feedback after an interview.
• You didn’t wear a headset during a Zoom interview.
• They suspected you used AI to write your cover letter because managers copy and paste your cover letter into ChatGPT and ask ChatGPT if it wrote it.
• You used business jargon like “optimization,” “synergistic,” and “empowerment.”

I want to explain why these so-called wisdoms aren’t doing employers (or employees) any favors.

Asking for feedback

When did seeking feedback become a crime? Isn’t this a sign of a candidate’s willingness to learn and improve? In a world where companies should be encouraging professional growth, it’s disheartening to see someone cast aside such a fundamental aspect of personal development. Feedback isn’t just a tool for improvement; it’s a crucial step toward understanding and refining one’s skills and approach. By penalizing those who seek constructive criticism, we discourage a growth mindset that is essential in any workplace.

Unfortunately, sometimes companies are skeptical of individuals who demonstrate a proactive attitude toward self-improvement. But the reluctance to provide feedback perpetuates a cycle of misunderstanding and missed opportunities. Without open dialogue and constructive critique, both candidates and employers lose out on valuable insights that could enhance performance and foster a more supportive work environment.

Ultimately, embracing feedback as a cornerstone of professional development isn’t just about personal growth — it’s about creating a culture that values continuous improvement and mutual respect. By championing a culture that welcomes feedback, organizations can empower their prospective employees and future teams to strive for excellence and cultivate a thriving, collaborative workplace.

You didn’t wear a headset

And since when did wearing a headset during Zoom interviews become the golden rule? Every recruiter I’ve spoken to uses their computer mic without issue. Yet, here we are, penalizing candidates for not sporting fancy headsets. It begs the question, are we evaluating tech prowess or professional potential?

Economically, this preference introduces a new barrier — favoring those who can afford premium equipment over equally qualified candidates who cannot. Such bias not only skews hiring decisions but also perpetuate inequalities, which ends up penalizing economically marginalized groups.

In a fair and inclusive hiring process, organizations should put emphasis on skills, experience, and personal qualities — not the peripherals. When they fixate on superficial criteria like headset choice (or lack thereof), we risk overlooking talent and potential that could enrich our teams. Let’s refocus on what truly matters in interviews — assessing qualifications and fostering an environment where every candidate has a fair chance to showcase their abilities.

You used ChatGPT

And the most confusing: the suspicion that you used AI to write your cover letter. The thing is, AI detection is far from foolproof and can lead to erroneous judgments. In turn, you can potentially disqualify candidates who have actually invested time and effort in crafting an effective cover letter.

Penalizing candidates for potentially leveraging AI also overlooks the evolving role of technology in the workplace and the advantages it can offer. It’s ironic that many companies themselves employ AI in their hiring processes. Penalizing candidates for using the same technology HR relies on for screening — well, that’s like a chef being offended because you brought your own knife to the kitchen. It’s a glaring double standard that undermines the very principles of fairness and meritocracy.

In an era where we need technological fluency, dismissing candidates for employing available tools demonstrates a reluctance to embrace progress. Instead, organizations should focus on assessing the substance and relevance of candidates’ qualifications and competencies. By doing so, they can foster an inclusive environment that values innovation and empowers candidates to leverage technology responsibly.

You used business jargon

By this reasoning, every corporate meeting becomes a theatrical performance of falsehoods. Excluding candidates based on their vocabulary is like judging a book by its cover.

This perspective not only undermines the value of specialized language in professional contexts, but also perpetuates a bias against individuals who are well-versed in industry-specific terminology. Effective communication in business often requires the use of precise language to convey complex ideas and strategies. Dismissing candidates based on their vocabulary choices risks overlooking their potential to contribute meaningfully to the organization.

In a time where we need diversity of thought and expertise for innovation and growth, hiring practices should prioritize substance over superficial criteria. Embracing linguistic diversity and recognizing the legitimacy of different communication styles can foster a more inclusive workplace culture. Rather than penalizing candidates for their vocabulary, organizations should focus on evaluating their skills, experiences, and ability to contribute to the team’s success.

How to level the playing field

Ultimately, leveling the playing field means moving toward inclusive, transparent, and empathetic hiring practices. Until then, countless deserving candidates will continue to be unjustly sidelined, perpetuating a cycle of inequality and bias.

It’s time to drive meaningful change in areas where decisions profoundly impact people’s livelihoods and opportunities. Only by addressing and rectifying these systemic flaws can we create a more equitable and inclusive hiring landscape for all.