Inclusive hiring is often the first priority for organizations seeking to strengthen equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the workplace. The rationale is two-fold - bringing in new underrepresented hires immediately contributes to a more diverse demographic representation within the company - and also appears to signal an intention to internal employees and external candidates alike that EDI is indeed a priority. 

However, there are many considerations when it comes to inclusive hiring, and without intentionality and structure behind it, it can easily veer into territory that is perceived as performative, result in negative consequences, and end up being costly to your organization. For example, research also shows significant problems within organizations with high rates of diversity without inclusion, as those from underrepresented and excluded populations often experience behaviours, practices, policies and systems that perpetuate exclusion and inequity. Simply put, diversity without inclusion is a perpetuation of the harm we’re trying to correct in EDI.

Therefore, an inclusive recruitment approach needs to be systemic and structural, and be conducted in tandem with a broader EDI strategy focused on what happens before, during, and after candidates join your team.

Let’s look at some key questions to ask yourself when it comes to inclusive recruitment and beyond:

• How is your hiring process structured? Have you established consistent scoring rubrics designed for fairness and accountability, and is EDI embedded as criteria in your hiring processes?

• Have you conducted a pay equity assessment in order to know where compensation gaps may exist across all groups?

• Do you have an established accommodations process in place, and do your hiring teams understand the barriers - even prior to application - that equity-deserving groups face that may prevent them from applying?

• Is training offered and completed by recruiters, hiring managers, and others involved in the recruitment process to mitigate both conscious and unconscious biases - and even offering refresher courses prior to interview rounds?

• Are you equipping your managers with the ability, knowledge, and tools needed in order to properly invest in employees? Are growth and stretch opportunities provided to underrepresented employees, rather than a select group of people?

• Understanding that marginalized folks often don’t have the same advantage of having professional networks, are there mentorship and/or sponsorship programs in place for senior leaders to leverage their positions of influence to advocate for them?

• Has your organization built genuine relationships with community organizations and networks that have access to diverse candidate pools and are invested in their career success?

• Representation matters - is your hiring panel reflective of your candidate pool and candidates you want to attract, your employee demographics, and the clients and communities you serve?

• Who is making key hiring decisions? What guardrails are in place to mitigate biases and groupthink?

• Do you have a robust data collection and analysis strategy to identify areas for process improvement, such as where in the recruitment process certain marginalized candidates may not be advancing due to potential biases or structural issues?

• Does your company believe they operate under a notion of meritocracy, or do they challenge that myth and have evaluated who is truly “qualified” for roles?

• If you believe your company hires for “culture add” vs “culture fit”, have you clearly identified and defined what your “culture” is and communicated that across your organization?

While there are more considerations that can be made, these are some imperative points to consider when it comes to ensuring inclusive recruitment efforts are truly effective.

So what happens when we don’t make these considerations and fail to establish a culture where marginalized new hires are able to thrive and succeed after joining? We run the risk of the financial and productivity costs of employee turnover. On average, replacing an employee costs at least 1.5 times the yearly salary of employees. These replacement costs are even higher when considering equity deserving groups, such as women and racialized people, as the time-to-fill rate can be longer if diverse candidate pools are already lacking. These costs don’t begin to factor in legislation costs and potential damage due to negative publicity.

By the time these considerations are thought of and acted upon, it is often too late to reestablish the commitment of employees who have already been disillusioned. A starting point is reflecting on this list and conducting a holistic audit of your inclusive recruitment practices - and broader EDI strategy - to understand where those gaps and areas for improvement are. Only then, will you be able to ensure that the well-intentioned work you are doing will effectively recruit, retain, and enable your candidates and employees to succeed.