Or, The Gap Between Inclusive Job Ads and Hiring Reality
Over the last few years you’ve probably seen a version of this paragraph in countless tech job postings over the past few years. And by holy crudmuffins, you might have even posted it yourself:
“Research shows that while men apply for jobs when they meet around 60% of the criteria, women and other marginalised groups tend to only apply when they check every box. So if you think you have what it takes, but you don’t meet every single point in this ad, please still get in touch, we’d love to talk to you.”
The intention behind this language is genuinely good. Companies recognise a real problem: qualified candidates from underrepresented groups self-select out of opportunities, while others apply with confidence despite not meeting all requirements. Adding this paragraph feels like a simple fix, just tell people to apply anyway, right?
But good intentions and hiring reality don’t always align.
When the Message Doesn’t Match the Process
The problem I have with this is that the inclusive language too often exists in a vacuum, completely disconnected from the actual hiring process. In most organisations, the hiring team hasn’t been briefed on this approach. They’re still evaluating candidates against the full job specification, expecting the technical skills and experience listed as requirements, not suggestions.
What happens next is predictable and frustrating. Candidates who took the company at their word and applied without meeting all the criteria get rejected in the first screening round. The hiring team, working with their usual evaluation criteria, sees these applications as unqualified rather than promising candidates who need development opportunities.
It’s a bit like putting up a sign that says “all welcome” whilst keeping the door locked.
The Unintended Consequences
This disconnect creates several problems that can actually make the diversity challenge worse:
- False hope followed by rejection. Candidates invest time in applications based on the company’s explicit encouragement, only to face standard rejection processes. This feels more demoralising than not applying at all.
- Wasted resources. Both candidates and hiring teams spend time on applications that were never realistically viable under current evaluation criteria.
- Cynicism about company values. When there’s a gap between marketing language and actual practice, it signals that diversity and inclusion might be more about appearance than substance. People notice these things.
- Reinforced barriers. If someone applies based on this encouragement and gets rejected, they may be less likely to apply to similar roles in the future, even when they are qualified.
The Reality Check
Most tech teams are operating at capacity; that’s just the nature of the industry. The idea that a new hire will have time to learn fundamental skills on the job often doesn’t always align with business pressures. When sprint deadlines loom and production issues arise, there’s limited bandwidth for extensive skill development.
It’s the same reason companies dont hire enough junior software engineers, no one’s got the time to mentor or train them. Tim Kreger reinforces this in this week’s podcast episode 👇🏻.
This doesn’t mean companies shouldn’t hire for potential, but it does mean being realistic about what gaps can be bridged in a fast-paced environment. You can’t just will extra time and resources into existence.
A More Honest Approach
If your company genuinely wants to implement this inclusive hiring philosophy, you need to do the work. Consider these steps:
- Align internally first. Before publishing inclusive language, ensure your hiring team understands and supports the approach. Train them to evaluate potential alongside current skills. This takes time and effort, not just a quick briefing.
- Be specific about flexibility. Instead of vague encouragement, specify which requirements are flexible: “We’re open to candidates with 2+ years experience instead of 3” or “Experience with React is preferred but not essential if you have solid JavaScript fundamentals.”
- Create development pathways. If you’re hiring people with skill gaps, have a concrete plan for how they’ll develop. This might mean mentorship programmes, training budgets, or adjusted performance expectations for the first six months. All of these cost money and time.
- Track outcomes. Monitor whether candidates encouraged by your inclusive language actually progress through your hiring process. If they don’t, investigate why. The data will tell you if you’re making progress or just making noise.
Consider alternative hiring models. Apprenticeships, internships, or junior roles might be more appropriate for candidates who don’t meet all the criteria but show strong potential.
The Bottom Line
Inclusive hiring is important for building diverse, innovative teams. But inclusive language without inclusive processes can do more harm than good. If we’re serious about expanding opportunity, we need to do the harder work of changing our evaluation criteria, not just our job ad copy.
The research on application patterns is real and important. But addressing it requires systemic change, not just different marketing language. Companies that get this right will build more diverse teams and tap into underutilised talent pools. Those that don’t risk creating the appearance of inclusivity whilst maintaining exclusive practices.
Before you add that paragraph to your next job posting, ask yourself: Are you prepared to actually hire the candidates it’s designed to attract? Because if you’re not, you might be doing more damage than good.
What I learned from speaking to an engineer who’s been through the scaling wars
Podcast Episode here.
Tim Kreger has been in the trenches of some serious scaling challenges. From building streaming platforms that beat Netflix in Southeast Asia to working with micro-finance products serving millions, he’s seen what happens when startups get serious funding and suddenly need to figure out how to actually scale.
What I like about Tim’s perspective is how practical it is. He’s not theorising about engineering culture or waxing lyrical about best practices. He’s talking about what actually works when you’re moving fast, when requirements change weekly, and when hiring the wrong person can genuinely set you back months.
Here are three things that stuck with me.
1. More engineers doesn’t mean more velocity
“We definitely went through that at iflix, where the team expanded and we realised we were becoming less and less efficient with a larger team.”
Tim’s seen this pattern play out multiple times. Founders get funding, assume they can hire their way to faster delivery, and end up with teams that are actually slower than when they started.
The issue isn’t the individual engineers, it’s that larger teams require different structures, different communication patterns, and different types of people. You can’t just scale a scrappy three-person team to fifteen people and expect the same energy and speed.
What matters more than team size is having people who can make decisions autonomously and aren’t precious about throwing work away when priorities shift.
2. You need engineers who can handle the chaos (and most can’t)
“You need a particular type of engineer for startups who’s a bit more resilient, a bit more cowboy’s not the word, but you’re sitting on the edge of that.”
Tim’s blunt about this: engineers from highly structured environments often struggle in early-stage companies. Not because they’re not good at their jobs, but because the job is fundamentally different.
In a corporate environment, you’ve got processes, ceremonies, and chains of command that remove the need to constantly make judgment calls. In a startup, you might need to pivot mid-week, throw away three weeks of work, or make a technical decision without a product manager because there’s a bottleneck.
The engineers who thrive are those who can say, “Right, this has all gone to hell, let’s have a quick chat and see how we’re going to get out of this.”
3. Senior engineers are worth their weight in gold (but not for the reasons you think)
“A senior engineer will just go, ‘Well, we just need to get this done. I can get this done by changing this. I understand it’s not the best decision, but let’s move on.'”
Tim makes a crucial distinction between engineers who are senior by years of experience and those who are senior by mindset. True senior engineers have been through enough disasters to know when to take shortcuts and when to invest time in doing things properly.
They’ve seen the worst-case scenarios and can make pragmatic trade-offs. A junior engineer might want to refactor everything before adding a feature. A senior engineer knows when that pile of technical debt can wait and when it’s going to bring the whole system down.
Most importantly, they can make these decisions quickly and explain them to non-technical stakeholders without getting bogged down in technical details.
Final thought
Tim brings the perspective of someone who’s been through multiple scaling cycles and seen what actually matters when you’re trying to build something that works.
“You should value the work you do, but you also shouldn’t be too precious about it. You need to be able to let it go and move on.”
That’s the kind of engineering mindset every early-stage team needs more of.
Before you go, can you help me out?
Nearly 1200 people have now subscribed to this newsletter in ~10weeks, which makes me feel that it’s resonating. So thank you to all of you 🙏🏻
If you found this issue useful, here are four ways you could support me:
- Share it – Forward this to a founder, hiring manager, or job seeker who you think might find it useful and/or interesting.
- Follow StartUpHiring on LinkedIn if you’re not already – https://www.linkedin.com/company/startuphiringaustralia
- Subscribe on Substack – Get early access to podcasts, templates, AI prompts, and bonus content at https://startuphiring.com.au/
- Send feedback – What topics would help you most? What’s working? What isn’t? Just hit reply.
I’m building this into the go-to resource for startup hiring. Whether you’re hiring your first employee or looking for your next role, I want this to be genuinely useful for you.
These small actions make a massive difference in helping me reach more people who need this content.
Thanks for being here. Have a brilliant week ahead.
Weekly newsletter drop: Wednesday 1:30pm – The Main Issue: Usually a comprehensive guide with advice for teams & talent, plus the latest podcast
Need hiring help?
If you’re struggling with a specific hiring challenge, I still offer 1:1 strategy calls through my consultancy, Crew. Book a 15-minute clarity call here
Simon
