I propose the removal of generic diversity statements from job adverts and recruitment marketing collateral.

You know the ones I mean -

“Here at YMMV we do not discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, gender, age, religion, political affiliation, disability, contingency recruitment, or favourite TV programmes except for Only Fools and Horses. We seek to foster an inclusive society where everyone can perform loudly on world awareness day”

I’m sure I’ve missed something.

There are simple reasons to move away from this rote paragraph.

One is performativity.

Have you ever spoken to anyone from a marginalised group fed up with performative showings in whatever public domain, that have no substance behind them?

Another is diversity washing.

How many companies that use diversity statements discriminate against people on the same list?

In which case, how might readers of these statements become sceptical?

A third is word blindness.

When was the last time you applied for a job, when you took a moment to read that statement and thought “Wow, this is the one for me?”

What about hypocrisy in action?

When diversity statements are attached to content that excludes without reason while providing barriers to entry.

Such as 12 points of essential requirements that only the boldest will take a punt on.

So if you accept that diversity statements are a flawed notion, and you are passionate about the need for and benefit of diversity, what can you do?

Rather than talk about it, be it at every opportunity.

Through a holistically accessible and inclusive approach.

Given how most candidates first experience our recruitment digitally, a good start is to follow the accessibility guidelines set out by W3C:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/

W3C says there are 4 pillars to build on - perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. POUR.

While much of this relates to the technical aspects of websites, such as job boards and the ATS (applicant tracking system), the onus is on how it’s used and experienced.

In written content, this boils down to using simple, clear, concise non-ambiguous language, transparently and accurately explained, and which is easy to navigate.

What are the needs of your readers?

How might people from different backgrounds struggle with transadapting what you’ve put forward?

How can you include people who may have individual needs they don’t want to express?

How can the same points help everyone?

A lot of my work in recruitment focuses on accessibility and inclusiveness.

My rationale is two-fold.

1/ because good candidates can be anywhere, and so I should gain the widest access and make my work as accessible as possible

2/ because it’s the right thing to do

Consulting on, ironing out the issues with and finding the commercial messaging for vacancies and candidate journeys leads to

When looking at the wider recruitment process, from the employer perspective, this also includes

At every touch point, put the needs of the candidate first. Yet in a way that serves your recruitment too - these steps are one reason I am an effective partner in both filling key vacancies and improving recruitment.

One of the placements that fulfilled me most last year was a guy with cerebral palsy in an early careers IT role. He was an excellent candidate, with great skills and achievements anyone would be pleased with.

He got the job because he was the best candidate and for no other reason.

I asked him what support he’d need at work, and the one thing he can’t do is stand on tables to change lightbulbs, in his words. I’m not sure that would be great lightbulb-changing practice for anyone, but there you go, that was his request for a reasonable adjustment.

That I was able to introduce him to a role he has gone on to excel in, with a hiring manager who saw his capability, when no other employer would touch him, was pretty fantastic.

Not one other employer in 10 years of applying for jobs.

It’s their loss.

I’m sure the employers I partner with can tell you about the diversity of candidates I present for their roles, and those I place. But it’s not the goal, it’s a consequence of my approach.

Accessibility and inclusiveness should benefit everyone.

If, for example, you are willing to provide interview questions in advance to ND candidates (something currently recommended as good practice in the UK), you could do the same for everyone.

Don’t forget that many people who fear discrimination may not be willing to ask for assistance that highlights the same.

Some may not be aware they would benefit from an accommodation. Such as the many people who will go on to gain a formal diagnosis of neurodiversity in future.

Wouldn’t they benefit from your support now, before they have an answer for the issues they find challenging in a world built for the typical?

If you interview fairly and robustly, this simply allows honest candidates to portray their candidacy more accurately.

Which helps you make better decisions.

So wouldn’t you allow the same opportunity for everyone?

If you have flexible working arrangements, a creche, or celebrate Diwali as well as Hanukkah - these are the things that show your diversity more than a statement does.

Moreso than tacking a generic statement at the end of an advert.

Instead, if you still want to make a statement, show why it is so important to your business individually.

How does it align with your vision to be something genuine to aspire to?

I’d be surprised if, when presenting such a true statement, it wouldn’t appeal to your ideal candidates, whoever they might be.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. I am pleased to share I am available to fill two key vacancies and work on one recruitment project. That second might be auditing your ATS as a candidate or your adverts to see exactly how accessible and inclusive they. Get in touch.