It’s not just about talent. It never has been.
For decades, hiring decisions have been shaped by something far less objective than ability: background.The old mantras—hard work pays off, talent rises, the best person gets the job—still get trotted out in boardrooms and recruitment panels. But the data tells a different story. Access to opportunity is rarely about ability alone. From the school you attended to the postcode you grew up in, success in the workplace is shaped as much by what’s familiar to hiring managers as it is by raw skill.For businesses that pride themselves on fairness, this should be troubling. The reality is that many organisations, often unconsciously, are reinforcing the very barriers they claim to break. Social mobility remains stagnant because hiring processes—designed with an illusion of neutrality—continue to favour those who already have access.So what’s going wrong? And, more importantly, how do we fix it?
The CV Filter: Hiring by Postcode, Not Potential
We are conditioned to think of CVs as a useful distillation of merit: qualifications, experience, achievements, all wrapped up in bullet points. But in reality, they serve as an early gatekeeper, filtering candidates based not on talent, but on opportunity.
Hiring managers, often unconsciously, favour applications from certain universities, well-known brands, and polished career trajectories. The result? Candidates who started further from the finish line – those who didn’t have the luxury of networking, unpaid internships, or elite schooling – rarely get a look in.
What should change?
Strip it back. Blind recruitment – removing education and previous employer names from applications – has been shown to improve diversity at shortlisting. But more than that, businesses need to stop using a candidate’s past as a predictor of their future. Skills-based hiring and structured assessment frameworks do a far better job of identifying potential than a degree certificate ever will.
The “Polish” Problem: Who Gets to Look Like Leadership?
Confidence, eye contact, a firm handshake. These are the things we are told matter in interviews. But what we call “polish” is often nothing more than a marker of social background.
If a hiring panel expects a candidate to “present well,” what they often mean is that the person should sound like them, behave like them, and fit a set of unwritten corporate norms. Those from low-income backgrounds – who may not have been raised to navigate such environments – can be misjudged as lacking leadership qualities, despite having the exact same abilities.
What should change?
Businesses need to stop equating confidence with competence. Structured interviews, where candidates are scored against clear, objective criteria rather than vague notions of “presence,” reduce bias. Providing clear guidance before an interview – not just on the process, but on expectations – levels the playing field.
The Informal Networks That Keep the Same People at the Top
It is no secret that many of the best jobs never make it to a job board. Referrals and informal hiring processes mean that those who already have connections within an industry have an advantage before they even apply.
While networking is often framed as a skill, the reality is that it’s a privilege – one more easily accessible to those who were already inside the room.
What should change?
Organisations serious about social mobility need to challenge the over-reliance on referrals. Tracking the socio-economic background of new hires (including those hired via referrals) can highlight where exclusion is happening. Actively seeking out partnerships with social mobility-focused recruitment providers can also help businesses widen their talent pool.
Culture Fit: The Comfortable Illusion
“We hire people who fit our culture.” This is a phrase that should raise alarm bells. What it often means is: We hire people who feel familiar.
The reality is that a homogenous workforce, built around shared social and cultural backgrounds, isn’t the result of hiring the best—it’s the result of hiring the most familiar.
What should change?
Organisations should be asking, What will this person add to our culture? rather than How well do they fit? Diversity of thought, background, and experience should be an asset, not a risk. Multi-person hiring panels, made up of individuals from different backgrounds, significantly reduce bias in decision-making.
Snap Judgements and First Impressions
The power of first impressions is well documented. But when hiring decisions are made in the first five minutes of an interview – a phenomenon research has repeatedly confirmed—it raises serious questions about fairness.
If a candidate’s accent, appearance, or mannerisms influence their likelihood of being hired, then recruitment isn’t a meritocracy. It’s a social sorting system.
What should change?
The most effective solution is to delay subjectivity. Scoring candidates against predefined, job-relevant criteria before making final hiring decisions ensures that unconscious bias doesn’t shape outcomes.
What Happens If Businesses Get This Right?
The cost of hiring bias isn’t just exclusion – it’s missed potential. When businesses fail to open their doors to a broader range of talent, they not only reinforce inequality but limit their own growth.Hiring for social mobility isn’t about lowering the bar – it’s about ensuring the right people get to step up to it. The organisations that recognise this will lead the way in shaping the future of fair, effective hiring. Those that don’t will find themselves trapped in a cycle of homogeneity, wondering why fresh talent never seems to emerge.
