Think Business Think Equality

Recruitment and promotion decisions are often shaped by assumptions and stereotypes about who is suitable for certain roles, who is seen as committed, and who is expected to progress. These assumptions can disadvantage women, even where there is no intention to discriminate.

Women are more likely to be affected by expectations around availability, flexibility and caring responsibilities. Where roles are assumed to require long hours, constant availability or full-time working, women may be less likely to be considered, encouraged to apply, or appointed. This can limit women’s access to senior or higher-paid roles and reinforce occupational segregation.

Informal practices also play a role. Where vacancies or progression opportunities are filled through word of mouth, networks or manager discretion, women are more likely to be overlooked. Decisions based on ‘fit’, confidence or potential can also reflect gendered expectations, rather than skills and experience.

These patterns can be more pronounced for some groups of women, including disabled women, women from racially minoritised communities, older women, and women returning to work after a break. When different forms of inequality intersect, barriers to recruitment and promotion can be harder to overcome.

Understanding how gender inequality affects recruitment and promotion is an important step in identifying where bias may be influencing decisions, and where clearer structures and more transparent practices could support fairer outcomes.

Decisions about job design and how roles are described play a key role in who applies for, and is appointed to, a role. Requirements that are unclear, overly narrow or based on assumptions can unintentionally exclude women and other underrepresented groups.

Job descriptions and person specifications should focus on what is genuinely required to do the role, rather than how the role has previously been done. Long lists of ‘essential’ criteria, unnecessary qualifications, or requirements for continuous or specific types of experience can disadvantage women, particularly those who have taken career breaks or worked part-time.

Language also matters. Gendered wording, emphasising competitiveness, long hours or constant availability, can discourage women from applying. Being clear about flexibility, progression opportunities and support can help widen the pool of applicants.

Designing roles with flexibility in mind – for example by considering working patterns, location or how tasks are organised – can make roles accessible to a wider range of candidates. This is particularly important for women with caring responsibilities and disabled women who may need adjustments.

Taking a considered approach to job design and role descriptions helps ensure recruitment decisions are based on skills and potential, widens access to talent, and supports fair and inclusive recruitment outcomes

How and where roles are advertised has a significant impact on who applies. Relying on limited channels or informal networks can narrow the pool of candidates and reinforce existing inequalities, particularly where those networks are male-dominated or exclude carers.

Advertising roles openly and widely helps ensure opportunities are accessible to a broader range of people. This includes using channels that are likely to reach women and underrepresented groups, as well as being clear and transparent about what the role involves and how to apply.

The way roles are presented also matters. Including clear information about pay, flexibility and progression can help reduce barriers and encourage applications from women who may otherwise self-select out. Where flexibility is possible, stating this upfront can significantly widen the talent pool.

Imagery and messaging can also influence who feels encouraged to apply. Using inclusive language and avoiding stereotypes helps signal that your business values diversity and fairness.

Taking a thoughtful approach to advertising roles supports fairer recruitment, helps attract a wider range of candidates, and increases the likelihood of finding the skills and experience your business needs.

Shortlisting and interview decisions are a key point at which bias can influence recruitment outcomes. Where decisions rely on informal judgement, or a sense of ‘fit’, women are more likely to be disadvantaged.

Using clear and consistent criteria helps reduce this risk. Decisions should be based on the skills, experience and capabilities needed for the role, rather than assumptions about potential, availability or personality. Where criteria are vague or applied inconsistently, the same types of candidates are more likely to be favoured repeatedly.

Interviews can also reinforce inequality if questions or assessments are not structured. Asking different questions of different candidates, focusing on future availability, or placing undue weight on confidence or presentation can disadvantage women, particularly those returning to work, working part-time, or from underrepresented backgrounds.

Who is involved in decision-making matters too. Decisions made by a single individual, or without discussion or challenge, increase the risk of unconscious bias shaping outcomes. More transparent and collective approaches can support fairer decisions.

Understanding how shortlisting and interview decisions are made in practice – including what is valued, who is involved, and how decisions are recorded – can help identify where bias may be influencing recruitment outcomes and where greater consistency could improve fairness.

Recruitment processes that are not designed with accessibility in mind can create barriers for disabled women and candidates with long-term health conditions, even where there is no intention to exclude.

Accessibility issues can arise at any stage of recruitment, including how roles are advertised, how applications are submitted, and how interviews or assessments are conducted. Online-only processes, rigid formats, or assumptions about how candidates should perform can disadvantage people who require adjustments.

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates. This might include adjustments to application processes, interview formats, assessment methods, or timing. Treating adjustments as routine, rather than exceptional, helps ensure candidates are assessed fairly on their skills and experience.

Clear communication is important. Candidates should know how to request adjustments and feel confident that doing so will not negatively affect their application. Assumptions about capability or suitability should be avoided, and decisions should be based on evidence rather than perceptions.

Designing recruitment processes that are accessible and inclusive helps widen the talent pool, supports compliance with the law, and ensures disabled women and other candidates are not unfairly excluded from opportunities.

What positive action is (and what it isn’t)

Where people with a protected characteristic are underrepresented in certain roles, levels or occupations, employers can take targeted steps to improve access to recruitment and promotion opportunities. This is known as positive action, and it is lawful under the Equality Act 2010.

Positive action is not giving some people an unfair advantage. It is not the same as positive discrimination. Positive discrimination – appointing or promoting someone solely because of a protected characteristic, regardless of merit – is generally unlawful. Positive action, by contrast, is about addressing very real barriers and disadvantage and widening access, while still appointing candidates who meet the requirements of the role.

Positive action is often understood only as the tie-break provision, where an employer can choose a candidate with a protected characteristic over another candidate if they are equally qualified. For example, this could mean appointing a woman over a man, or a disabled person over a non-disabled person, where both candidates meet the requirements of the role to the same standard. While this is one form of positive action, it is not the only one.

Pre-employment positive action and widening access

In practice, pre-employment positive action is often more important and more impactful than tie-break situations. This focuses on widening access and removing barriers before decisions are made, so that underrepresented groups are better represented in applicant pools and progression pipelines.

Pre-employment positive action might include:

• targeted outreach or advertising to encourage applications from racially minoritised women
• information sessions or open days aimed at young mothers
• targeted support to help disabled women prepare for recruitment or promotion processes

Positive action should be proportionate and evidence-based. Employers should be able to show that people with a particular protected characteristic are underrepresented or face disadvantage, and that the measures taken are aimed at addressing those issues. The Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) provides guidance on the lawful use of positive action, including examples relevant to recruitment and promotion.

Recruitment does not end when someone is appointed. Early experiences at work play a significant role in whether new staff feel welcomed, supported and able to stay and progress.

How people are inducted, managed and supported can affect retention, particularly for women and others who face barriers at work. Where expectations are unclear, support is inconsistent, or flexibility and adjustments are not discussed early, staff may disengage or leave – even where recruitment processes were fair.

Line managers play a key role in retention. Their attitudes to flexible working, development, caring responsibilities and wellbeing can shape whether staff feel valued and able to raise issues. Poor management practice is a common reason people leave roles, particularly where concerns are dismissed or support is uneven.

Workplace culture also matters. A culture that tolerates bias, racism, ableism or sexual harassment can undermine retention, while a culture that promotes dignity, respect and fairness helps staff feel safe and committed to staying.

Taking a joined-up approach – from recruitment through induction and early support – helps businesses retain skills, reduce turnover, and ensure that recruitment efforts lead to long-term, sustainable outcomes for staff and the organisation.

Close the Gap

Recruitment and retention guidance

Equality & Human Rights Commission guidance on positive action