Is Your Hiring Process Inclusive? Only If It Works for Everyone

You might recall a previous post I shared about Liam — a candidate who had requested simple accommodations during a recruitment process. He asked not to do a video screening due to accessibility needs. He also asked for interview questions to be provided a day in advance.

The recruiter acknowledged his requests… and then failed to honour either.

Liam was required to complete the video screen. He received the interview questions just 15 minutes before the meeting.

From a justice perspective, many of us ask:

❝Why did the organisation even bother asking about accommodations if it wasn’t going to follow through?❞

That question stayed with me. So, I looked into it further.

⚖️ Legal and Ethical Obligations in Australia

In Australia, employers are legally required to provide reasonable accommodations for candidates with disabilities. This is outlined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Fair Work Act 2009.

Denying or ignoring requests like Liam’s isn’t just inconsiderate — it could be unlawful. But even beyond the legal landscape, there’s an ethical imperative here:

If you claim to be an inclusive employer, then accessibility isn’t optional. It’s foundational.

🧩 The Gap Between Policy and Practice

When organisations ask about accommodations but fail to act on them, it reveals a troubling reality: performative inclusion. That is, inclusion as image — a check-box exercise — not a lived practice.

Inclusion isn’t about sending a form. It’s about follow-through, trust, and dignity.

Imagine a different story: Amira, who is autistic, discloses her preference for a written interview format and a structured process. The company initially agrees, but on the day of the interview, the panel insists on an informal conversation “to see how she thinks on her feet.” Amira, caught off guard and unsupported, struggles. She doesn’t get the role — and is left questioning whether she should’ve disclosed at all.

This isn't just an error in process. It’s a betrayal of trust.

🧠 This Is About Power, Not Just Process

Here’s what we need to understand: power in hiring is rarely shared equally.

The recruitment process is already tilted toward those who are neurotypical, familiar with “corporate speak,” and comfortable with ambiguity and speed. When we deny accommodations, we reinforce that imbalance — we tell candidates that success is only available to those who thrive under our default conditions.

Think about Marcus, a candidate with ADHD. He brings creativity, strategy, and deep systems thinking. But in the interview, where questions jump around and expectations are unclear, he’s overwhelmed. Feedback? “He wasn’t focused enough.” But was that a reflection of his ability — or of a process that excluded his strengths?

When people are asked to prove themselves in a system never built for them, they’re set up to fail — and then blamed for it.

🎭 The False Fairness Argument

One of the most persistent myths is that giving candidates accommodations — like interview questions in advance — creates an unfair advantage.

But here’s the truth: Fairness is not about treating everyone the same. Equity is about giving people what they need to succeed.

We accept this in other areas without hesitation. If one candidate wears glasses and another uses a wheelchair, we don’t cry “unfair advantage.” We recognize that people have different access needs. It’s the same principle.

In Liam’s case, providing interview questions a day early wasn’t about giving him a leg up — it was about levelling the playing field.

💡 What Are We Really Testing For?

If your interview process only values quick thinking under pressure, you’re not assessing talent — you’re assessing performance under narrow, privileged conditions.

Imagine Deepa, a talented policy thinker who thrives with reflection and analysis. In a rapid-fire panel interview, she freezes. But give her 30 minutes to write a response? She shines. If your recruitment only values speed, you’ll never see her brilliance.

Diversity of thought requires us to value different thinking styles. Otherwise, we’re only hiring those who can mirror our own.

🔧 Solutions That Go Beyond Compliance

We don’t need to choose between compliance and compassion. We can — and must — do both. Here’s what better could look like:

• Universal Design in Recruitment Share general themes or prep questions with all candidates. Make structure the norm, not the exception.
• Flexible Interview Formats Offer alternatives — written, phone, video, or in-person — based on what enables candidates to show their best.
• Accessibility-Aware Interview Training Equip recruiters and hiring managers to understand disability, neurodivergence, and inclusive practice. Unconscious bias training is not enough.
• Accountability Measures Track when accommodations are requested and honoured. Collect feedback. Close the loop. Create consequences where the system fails.

🧭 A Final Reflection

When we talk about accessibility and accommodations, what we’re really talking about is respect.

Liam’s story isn’t just about a missed opportunity — it’s about trust lost before it was ever earned.

Inclusion doesn’t start after someone’s hired. It starts the moment they dare to apply.

And the question we must keep asking is:

❝Are we building systems that truly welcome difference — or only tolerate it, on our terms?❞

🔁 Have you experienced something similar in a hiring process — as a candidate or recruiter? I’d love to hear your thoughts and ideas for building processes that truly welcome difference.

#Inclusion #Accessibility #Recruitment #Neurodiversity #Equity #Leadership #DEI #HiringFairness #ReasonableAdjustments