Why it’s not OK when your hiring practices cause harm

On RUOK Day I want to pose a question outside of the typical clarion calls.

Since RUOK was launched in 2009 by adman Gavin Larkin Australians are au fait with the crusade to check in with colleagues and friends mental health.

Larkin who passed away in 2011 launched the movement after his father’s suicide and battling his own depression. 

But a question that is never asked in media and marketing workplaces is: ‘RUOK with hiring practices which cause harm?’ 

This question will have many in the small and startup world squirming and I’m good with that. The way you treat candidates and dismiss them for ageist, racist and sexist attitudes and bias will no doubt nibble (or shark-like bite) at your conscience.

The RUOK message is a critical one to elevate reflection and conversations around mental wellbeing and suicide prevention.  It’s one of the most pressing issues of our times impacting all ages, races and genders and the media sector widely.

And there will not be a single reader here who hasn’t been directly or indirectly impacted by the devastation of mental health.  Likewise they will also have been impacted directly or indirectly by the aftermath of uncaring hiring practices.

2024 is an exceptionally difficult year of market and financial instability. It is also one where the SME and startup sector must elevate their own reputation and talent attraction 

Stereotypes & bias harm

The hiring ecosystem on both recruiter and employer side has always been, and continues to be trussed with all manner of isms and particularly sexism, racism, and ageism.

Ageism is particularly troublesome as it impacts every human at some point with a focus on the under 25 and over 50 age groups. 

Concerning reports from The World Health Organisation states:  ‘Ageism leads to poorer health, social isolation, earlier deaths and cost economies billions’.

The impact of hiring biases on candidates who face one or a combination of rejections is beyond quantification emotionally, physically and financially.  Rejections will be a part of the hiring ecosystem and there is no qualms there.

But by gee I bloody have qualms with the way candidates are treated and rejected. As humans we thrive when we feel valued and respected. And we plummet when we feel insulted and disrespected. 

Any insults and disrespect manifest at both the start (stereotype biases) and during the mid-end processes.  Think how often ghosting occurs alongside  dismissive emails.  

Taking responsibility 

Back to my question – RUOK with your behaviours, inaction and biased attitudes to candidates? 

RUOK knowing that you can be adding to harm and increasing a person’s low self-worth? 

It’s ironic that even with robust DEI policies in place (however ageism is rarely included) that hiring processes rarely truly reflect human care and wellbeing. 

The impact of callous rejections, ghosting and bias affects both men and women detrimentally. Though sadly I observe men are particularly more vulnerable to depression and as they try to maintain a stiff upper lip. 

Where negative impacts appear 

Everyone has been directly or indirectly impacted by hiring practices by:

• The best friend who cannot face another dismissive rejection.
• The parent who is feeling depressed due to not being able to get interviews because they are over 50 and feel they cannot support their family.
• The spouse who is being discriminated against unfairly and feels demoralised
• The son or daughter under 25 who faces rejection every day
• The ex-colleague who was given an unwanted redundancy at 50 and cannot get another role 6 months on
• The uncle or aunt who, despite decades of study and experience, is treated like a second-class citizen.
• The single woman over 55 who cannot survive on super and needs to work.  She faces a mix of biases with her age and gender, which causes great angst on every level.
• The whippet smart executive who keeps getting rejected is being told they are overqualified which code is for ‘we don’t hire your age’. Nothing to do with the role.
• The young international university graduate who feels cultural pressure to work but cannot get a chance
• Even the recruiter and hiring managers own family and friends who are depressed and on the brink.

Minimising harm

Firstly, don’t even attempt to deflect responsibility with time constraints. If you are hiring you have a duty of human care to treat ‘genuine’ applicants well.   

1. Check your own bias scotomas. Don’t lump and reject candidates by nonsense stereotypes
2. Set up respectful and kindly worded emails acknowledging receipt applications. Automated ones initially are fine, but set them up.  (Not just the flicked job board ones).
3. Keep candidates that have been interviewed in  regular  communications (even if no news)
4. Pass on unsuccessful decisions after interview processes with empathy, good feedback and immediacy (by phone)
5. Never ever ghost candidates after  interviews.
6. Show gratitude in the hiring process.
7. Make the time to handle the process with care and respect  

Applying for jobs from junior burger to executive levels is never easy with financial stability, careers and self-worth at play.  You are dealing with real humans not AI robots who can have so many other challenging and moving parts in their life you are not aware of.  

Your personal and business reputation is part of a mycelium of networks.  You never know who is connected and can impact your business and share negative feedback.

So again, take a deep reflection and ask ‘RUOK with hiring practices which can cause harm?’ 

• Sue Parker is the owner of DARE Group Australia, a communications, job search and career specialist.