Age bias in recruitment doesn’t necessarily begin with a hiring decision.
It can begin much earlier, with the words, images and signals organisations use to describe an opportunity. Most employers would probably say that they want to attract the widest possible pool of capable candidates. Job advertisements routinely describe organisations as inclusive, careers pages feature commitments to diversity, as recruitment processes are increasingly reviewed for accessibility and fairness.
And yet, before a candidate reaches any of those things, something more subtle may already have happened…they may have decided…“This job isn’t really for someone like me.”
Recruitment starts before the application
When we think about bias in recruitment, attention naturally turns towards selection.
-
Who gets shortlisted?
-
Who gets interviewed?
-
Who gets appointed?
Those are important questions, but they begin relatively late in the process. There is an earlier stage that receives less attention…self-selection.
Potential applicants interpret signals about an organisation long before submitting a CV. The language of an advert, the imagery on a careers page, descriptions of workplace culture and even the benefits an organisation chooses to emphasise can help someone form an impression of who works there, and who is likely to belong.
That means an apparently neutral recruitment process can still produce an age-skewed candidate pool. Not necessarily because particular candidates were rejected, some may never have applied.
What does an “ideal candidate” look like?
Consider some familiar recruitment language…an organisation might describe itself as young and dynamic, seek a digital native, look for someone with high energy, or promote a workplace built around a particular lifestyle…as such, sometimes the age signal is more subtle.
A vacancy requiring an unnecessarily narrow number of years’ experience can imply a preferred career trajectory. Graduate recruitment can become synonymous with youth even where age is irrelevant. Images can repeatedly depict employees from a narrow age range, and benefits can be presented around assumptions about what people at a particular stage of life value.
None of these things necessarily reflects deliberate discrimination, but collectively they can create a picture of the person an organisation expects to see, and candidates are very capable of reading that picture.
The problem with age-coded assumptions
The difficulty is that age is frequently used as a proxy for something else. We associate youth with energy, adaptability or digital capability, and we associate age with experience, stability or perhaps resistance to change, but those characteristics don’t belong to age groups.
A 58-year-old may be changing careers and learning an entirely new technology. A 24-year-old may already possess considerable specialist expertise. Someone returning to work after a career break may bring capabilities that aren’t neatly reflected in their most recent job title.
This is where recruitment can inadvertently confuse age with career stage, experience or tenure.
If what an employer actually requires is adaptability, ask for adaptability. If the role requires particular digital capabilities, specify those capabilities, and if relevant experience matters, describe the experience required.
Inclusion is also about who opts in
Recruit for the capability, not the age, career path or conventional profile we have learned to associate with it. This gives organisations a slightly different way of thinking about recruitment data, as it isn’t enough simply to examine the diversity of people eventually appointed. Employers can also ask:
-
Who saw our opportunities?
-
Who considered applying?
-
Who actually applied?
-
Who progressed?
-
And where did people leave the process?
Those questions can reveal very different things. If candidates of different ages apply in broadly representative numbers but experience significantly different progression rates, there may be questions about assessment or selection.
But if particular age groups rarely enter the applicant pool in the first place, the issue may sit much earlier, in attraction, reputation, language, recruitment channels or perceptions of organisational culture.
And there is a business consequence too.
An organisation isn’t simply missing applicants from a particular age group, it may be excluding, before selection has even begun, people who possess exactly the skills and capabilities the vacancy requires.
That becomes particularly important when we consider transferable skills. A candidate may not have followed the expected career path or worked previously in the same sector, but they may have developed problem-solving, leadership, customer insight, technical capability, commercial judgement or other relevant skills somewhere entirely different.
If recruitment is designed too narrowly around where somebody has acquired their experience, rather than what that experience enables them to do, potentially valuable candidates can become invisible. So the opportunity in age-inclusive recruitment isn’t simply to create a more age-diverse applicant pool, it is to create a deeper and potentially more capable talent pool. broadening the generational reach of recruitment is therefore not about filling an age quota, it is about increasing the likelihood that the organisation finds the skills, experience and potential it needs.
Technology doesn’t automatically remove the problem
AI and automated recruitment tools add another dimension. Technology can potentially help organisations identify unnecessarily restrictive wording, structure assessments more consistently and process large candidate pools, but automation doesn’t make recruitment inherently neutral.
A system is still shaped by the criteria, examples, data and decisions surrounding it. If an organisation has an unclear idea of what capability actually looks like, technology can make that unclear assumption more efficient rather than more accurate.
That is why human oversight remains important, particularly when organisations introduce new recruitment technologies. The question shouldn’t simply be – “Is the system treating everyone consistently?” it should also be – “Are we asking the right things of candidates in the first place?”
Look at recruitment through the candidate’s eyes
There is a relatively simple exercise organisations can undertake. Take a current vacancy and experience it as though you were encountering the organisation for the first time.
-
Look at the job title.
-
Read the advert.
-
Look at the photographs.
-
Review the person specification.
-
Follow the application process.
-
Look at the benefits being promoted.