To ensure inclusivity at the interview stage, we remove names from resumes when consulting management outside HR, reducing unconscious bias early in the process. During interviews, we use standardized, bias-free questions while allowing flexibility on non-critical topics. These changes have improved fairness in candidate evaluation and increased the diversity of candidates advancing to final rounds.
"Walk me through your career path."It seemed like a friendly and transparent way to get to know possible hires. I once watched a bright woman lose her mind as she described the three-year lag between working two part-time jobs and taking care of a parent. The fact that she had to explain the gaps and abrupt shift in her career path felt unfair to her. I then understood that the question had inadvertently given preference to applicants with conventional, linear career narratives. People who had different paths but were just as skilled and resilient were at a disadvantage. "Tell me about an achievement, inside or outside of work, that you are proud of," is what I substituted for the original question. I began to hear about people learning skills on their own at night after work. Others passionately talked about participating in community projects. The stories were fuller, more authentic and I always looked forward to their answers. A year later, 23% of our hires were from non-traditional backgrounds. A 14% increase from the previous year. Our retention rate rose to +11%. Hiring people whose lived experiences brought depth and diversity gave us more. Far more than we could get from people with a seemingly perfect career path.
When it comes to neurodiversity, research suggests that encouraging candidates to disclose their diagnosis beforehand does reduce bias, particularly for candidates with autism. Understandably, many candidates hesitate to disclose a diagnosis on the basis of neurodivergence, in fear of explicit discrimination from the employing organisation. However, the risk of implicit bias is actually higher, and candidates with autism face serious implicit discrimination when interviewers haven't been made aware. After disclosing their diagnosis, interviewers tend to become more accepting, focusing on the core attributes relevant to the interview, rather than body language and social skills. Also, from the candidate's perspective, any employer that would explicitly discriminate against you on the basis of neurodivergence isn't worth working for. Realistically, you would rather they discontinue your application, as working for them would inevitably be awful. We have found this policy to significantly improve the chances of neurodivergent applicants passing the interview stage and receiving an offer. Additionally, the interviews themselves have been far more welcoming, as candidates can request accommodations and adjustments beforehand. I know this can be an uncomfortable topic to address with candidates, but the benefits do very much outweigh the disadvantages, and I strongly recommend encouraging people to disclose before the interview.
I have ceased to ask candidates about their "personal fit with healthcare culture" since this question typically led to selecting candidates who shared similar professional backgrounds. I have started asking interviewees to describe a specific moment when they enhanced a process that improved healthcare accessibility. The emphasis now lies on results instead of background credentials. Our organization hired team members with different life experiences who developed patient access strategies which simultaneously advanced DEI while making our programs more representative of our target communities.
I stopped asking candidates to "walk me through your resume" and started using structured, scenario-based questions tied directly to the role's core skills. That shift levels the playing field—people who didn't have the "perfect" career path still get to show how they think and solve problems. It cut down on snap judgments based on schools or past employers, and we saw a more diverse range of finalists who could clearly do the job. It also made interviews more consistent, which made bias easier to spot and address.
The way that we would conduct interviews changed and I would not ask so much how the candidates would fit into the team but how they would add to it. This change prompted interviewers to think of how a particular candidate would bring some different skills and ideas to the table as opposed to looking for someone who would be the same as the rest of the group. This change increased the inclusiveness of the process because it enabled us to recruit candidates with varying backgrounds and experience. The result was evident: the group has become more creative and we began to experience improved problem solving and innovativeness which directly reflected on our overall success.
We employed college and ranking questions in past application screenings but these methods only strengthened our biases. The interview begins with this question: "Can you describe a situation where you taught someone effectively regardless of available resources?" The approach allows me to assess fundamental education thinking patterns while creating an equal opportunity to evaluate their approach. People who excel in this question often emerge from unconventional backgrounds yet they establish powerful bonds with students which proves essential.
The new interview question focuses on what drives someone to support people who battle substance use disorder rather than their qualifications. People with lived experiences can prove their worth through this approach which bypasses traditional resume-based evaluations. Through this strategy we hired recovery staff who create authentic connections with clients thereby improving trust and program results across our services.
I replaced the previous interview question about "fit with traditional treatment models" with a new query that asks: "How do you establish an inclusive setting that allows people to express their genuine selves?" This approach attracts applicants who value community and inclusivity instead of clinical metrics. Our culture has improved because our staff members now match the open and diverse environment we aim to provide to Ikon clients.
I altered my formulation of scenario-based questions. Previously, I would pose the question to the candidates asking them to present an example when they were managing a diverse team. The issue was that not all candidates had received such opportunity, and therefore the answers revealed more exposure than potential. I substituted it with a set-up situation: I give a project team comprising of five members with diverse cultural and professional backgrounds and pose a question to the candidate as to how he/she would make sure that the input of all the members influences the outcome. The change meant that each candidate could answer in the thinking process and not on a resume. I could see how they organized communication, managed to balance views and adjust leadership style. The transformation eliminated the tendency to give preference to the candidates that worked in international organizations and provided the same opportunity to those who worked in small enterprises. The long-term effect was that there was less marginal representation in our recruits, and there was greater success in group performance.
Before this change we used to ask about "professional achievements." The new interview question I ask candidates is "How will your personal or professional journey enable you to support both clients and families?" The new interviewing approach enabled candidates from unique cultural backgrounds to apply for positions. The family programs have received enhanced strength since we hired staff members who mirror the demographic characteristics of our service population.
The Talmatic team replaced open-ended culture fit questions with guided, competency-based scenarios that had transparent links to core job responsibilities. And this is helpful because lessened the impact of personal biases by emphasizing observable competencies rather than likes between individuals, which allowed us to compare candidates from a wider range of backgrounds on an equal and consistent basis.
I used to request information about "leadership experience in behavioral health" yet this query consistently disqualified new talent. The new interview question I ask candidates is "How do you create trust with people who believe they are not understood?" The new interview format ensures fairness because it bases evaluation on interpersonal abilities instead of job positions. Our recruitment process has become more inclusive because we started hiring staff who effectively reach marginalized communities.
Before starting interviews I would ask candidates to describe their professional background but this approach tended to favor those with well-structured resumes. The new interview format begins with: "What approach would you use to create a secure environment for clients who need to reveal private information?" A single value-based question reveals more about someone than any occupational title would. Our programs now attract empathetic team members who bring inclusivity and support to our organization because of this approach.
One approach to promote DEI and reduce bias when hiring is to move away from "culture fit" questions and start focusing on "culture add questions". At Cafely, instead of asking questions like "would you enjoy working in a startup environment", we asked candidates "what unique perspective or experience would you bring to our team?". This interview approach promotes candidates to highlight differences as strengths. For example, a candidate from the Philippines for a customer support role shared how growing up in a multilingual household helps her to communicate efficiently despite language barriers. That kind of attitude and characteristics was perfect for what we were looking for in our global customer base role. Hiring candidates based on this approach helped Cafely to have a diverse team in both cultural and professional backgrounds. Within a year, management surveys increased in score ratings on belonging and inclusion. This shows that perfect framing of interview questions can make a more human-centric hiring and reduces biases.
I removed the question "Why do you want to work in recovery?" from our interview process because I switched to asking "What qualifications from your past will assist you in supporting clients with dignity?" This new question eliminates requirements for personal recovery experience while enabling professionals from different backgrounds to apply. The organization now employs healthcare professionals and social service experts with diverse backgrounds who enhance care delivery by bringing new insights while eliminating institutional blind spots.
I made some modifications in the way I encouraged candidates to discuss about their achievements. I replaced general inquiries, such as, "Tell me about yourself" with specific questions that asked them to take me through a project they were proud of, step-by-step, focusing on the resources they had, the pitfalls they negotiated and the results they achieved. The change leveled the playing field and allowed individuals with varying backgrounds a better opportunity to emphasize their strengths without having to resort to memorized answers and jargon. It made the process better since I was able to understand how a person thinks, how they can improvise when there are limited resources, and how they can cooperate with others. There was the story told by one candidate of how he worked with just three men, 2000 dollars worth of material and a two day schedule on a roofing job. Such detail provided me with the understanding of their resourcefulness and leadership. It helped me to be less biased and more concerned with measurable actions as opposed to polish or presentation.
Years ago, I discovered one of our habits in interviewing was, without intention, favoring candidates who felt more naturally confident as speakers, and as a result, we missed some of the quieter and equally capable talent. To make that a thing of the past, we added a skills-first stage to our interviews, where all candidates would complete the same brief relevant task before we met with them for a conversation. This made the focus on who "performs better" not just "who speaks best." Not only did it reveal strong candidates that we probably would have overlooked, but also made the interview process more fair and inclusive. It also reminded me that simple and intentional changes in hiring open the door to a more diverse and talented team for leaders everywhere.
What I do is that, I modified the way I word experience-based questions. As an alternative to asking a job candidate to provide a list of past employers or formal qualifications, I would ask the candidate to tell me about an incident in which he or she solved a problem under pressure, even if this was in an unconventional employment scenario. I had one candidate tell me about how she had planned a flood clean up in her community, getting 15 volunteers to give two days of their time to clean water damage out of six houses. I learnt more about their leadership and initiative through that story than a list of previous employment. This change has minimized unconscious bias in our interviews since it opens up the possibility of hiring individuals who do not necessarily follow a typical career trajectory but still has many desirable skills. It has enhanced our process by expanding our talent base and ensuring we look at individuals on the basis of the content of their contributions as opposed to how well their resumes might fit a particular mold.
I no longer use informal, yes-or-no question interviews with candidates but more structured interviews where each candidate's questions were scripted with only the core skills/behaviors that were relevant to their job. I may want to prefer candidates with certain skills or abilities, which tends to have an unintentional bias as well. I now prepare the same set of questions for every candidate for every interview to help minimize subjective judgment and ensure a fair interview. I don't ask, "Tell me about your experience, " I ask, "Describe a time you solved a problem under very tight deadlines. " Since the questions were written on paper, it was easier to assess each candidate and to make decisions in an objective way, not with subconscious biases.