It is a widely held belief that diversity brings strength to the workplace through different perspectives and talents.
The value is greatest when companies harness the differences between employees from multiple demographic backgrounds to understand and appeal to a broad customer base. But true diversity relies on social mobility and therein lies the problem: the rate of social mobility in the UK is the worst in the developed world.
The root cause of the UK’s lack of social mobility can be found in the very place that it can bring the most value – the workplace. Employers’ recruiting processes often suffer from unconscious human bias that results in involuntary discrimination. As a result, the correlation between what an employee in the UK earns today and what his or her father earned is more apparent than in any other major economy.
This article explores the barriers to occupational mobility in the UK and the growing use of predictive analytics or algorithmic hiring to neutralise unintentional prejudice against age, academic background, class, ethnicity, colour, gender, disability, sexual orientation and religion.
The government wants to promote equal opportunity
The UK government has highlighted the fact that ‘patterns of inequality are imprinted from one generation to the next’ and has pledged to make their vision of a socially mobile country a reality. At the recent Conservative party conference in Manchester, David Cameron condemned the country’s lack of social mobility as unacceptable for ‘the party of aspiration’. Some of the eye-opening statistics quoted by Cameron include:
- 7% of the UK population has been privately educated.
- 22% of FTSE 350 chief executives have been privately educated.
- 44% within the creative industries have been privately educated.
- By the age of three, children from disadvantaged families are already nine months behind their upper middle class peers.
- At sixteen, children receiving school meals will on average achieve 1.7 grades lower in their GCSEs.
- For A levels, the school one attends has a disproportionate effect on A* level achievement; 30% of A* achievers attend an independent school, while children attending such schools make up merely 7% of the general population.
- Independent school graduates make up 32% of MPs, 51% of medics, 54% of FTSE 100 chief executives, 54% of top journalists and 70% of High Court judges.
- By the age of 42, those educated privately will earn on average £200,000 more than those educated at state school.
Social immobility is an economic problem as well as a social problem
The OECD claims that income inequality cost the UK 9% in GDP growth between 1990 and 2010. Fewer educational opportunities for disadvantaged individuals had the effect of lowering social mobility and hampering skills development. Those from poor socio economic backgrounds may be just as talented as their privately educated contemporaries and perhaps the missing link in bridging the skills gap in the UK. Various industry sectors have hit out at the government’s immigration policy, claiming this widens the country’s skills gap still further.
Besides immigration, there are other barriers to social mobility within the UK that need to be lifted. Research by Deloitte has shown that 35% of jobs over the next 20 years will be automated. These are mainly unskilled roles that will impact people from low incomes. Rather than relying too heavily on skilled immigrants, the country needs to invest in training and development to upskill young people and provide home-grown talent to meet the future needs of the UK economy. Countries that promote equal opportunity for everyone from an early age are those that will grow and prosper.
How are employers supporting the government’s social mobility policy?
The UK government’s proposal to tackle the issue of social mobility, both in education and in the workplace, has to be greatly welcomed. Cameron cited evidence that people with white-sounding names are more likely to get job interviews than equally qualified people with ethnic names, a trend that he described as ‘disgraceful’. He also referred to employers discriminating against gay people and the need to close the pay gap between men and women. Some major employers – including Deloitte, HSBC, the BBC and the NHS – are combatting this issue by introducing blind-name CVs, where the candidate’s name is blocked out on the CV and the initial screening process. UCAS has also adopted this approach in light of the fact that 36% of ethnic minority applicants from 2010-2012 received places at Russell Group universities, compared with 55% of white applicants.
Although blind-name CVs avoid initial discriminatory biases in an attempt to improve diversity in the workforce, recruiters may still be subject to similar or other biases later in the hiring process. Some law firms, for example, still insist on recruiting Oxbridge graduates, when in fact their skillset may not correlate positively with the job or company culture. While conscious human bias can only be changed through education, lobbying and a shift in attitude, a great deal can be done to eliminate unconscious human bias through predictive analytics or algorithmic hiring.
How can algorithmic hiring help?
Bias in the hiring process not only thwarts social mobility but is detrimental to productivity, profitability and brand value. The best way to remove such bias is to shift reliance from humans to data science and algorithms. Human subjectivity relies on gut feel and is liable to passive bias or, at worst, active discrimination. If an employer genuinely wants to ignore a candidate’s schooling, racial background or social class, these variables can be hidden. Algorithms can have a non-discriminatory output as long as the data used to build them is also of a non-discriminatory nature.
Predictive analytics is an objective way of analysing relevant variables – such as biodata, pre-hire attitudes and personality traits – to determine which candidates are likely to perform best in their roles. By blocking out social background data, informed hiring decisions can be made that have a positive impact on company performance. The primary aim of predictive analytics is to improve organisational profitability, while a positive impact on social mobility is a healthy by-product.
An example of predictive analytics at work
A recent study in the USA revealed that the dropout rate at university will lead to a shortage of qualified graduates in the market (3 million deficit in the short term, rising to 16 million by 2025). Predictive analytics was trialled to anticipate early signs of struggle among students and to reach out with additional coaching and support. As a result, within the state of Georgia student retention rates increased by 5% and the time needed to earn a degree decreased by almost half a semester. The programme ascertained that students from high-income families were ten times more likely to complete their course than those from low-income households, enabling preventative measures to be put in place to help students from socially deprived backgrounds to succeed.
What can be done to combat the biases that affect recruitment?
Bias and stereotyping are in-built physiological behaviours that help humans identify kinship and avoid dangerous circumstances. Such behaviours, however, cloud our judgement when it comes to recruitment decisions. More companies are shifting from a subjective recruitment process to a more objective process, which leads to decision making based on factual evidence. According to the CIPD, on average one-third of companies use assessment centres as a method to select an employee from their candidate pool. This no doubt helps to reduce subjectivity but does not eradicate it completely, as peer group bias can still be brought to bear on the outcome.
Two of the main biases which may be detrimental to hiring decisions are ‘Affinity bias’ and ‘Status Quo bias’. ‘Affinity bias’ leads to people recruiting those who are similar to themselves, while ‘Status Quo bias’ leads to recruitment decisions based on the likeness candidates have with previous hires. Recruiting on this basis may fail to match the selected person’s attributes with the requirements of the job.
Undoubtedly it is important to get along with those who will be joining the company. The key is to use data-driven modelling to narrow down the search in an objective manner before selecting based on compatibility. Predictive analytics can project how a person will fare by comparing candidate data with that of existing employees deemed to be h3 performers and relying on metrics that are devoid of the type of questioning that could lead to the discriminatory biases that inhibit social mobility.
“When it comes to making final decisions, the more data-driven recruiting managers can be, the better.”
Bias works on many levels of consciousness
‘Heuristic bias’ is another example of normal human behaviour that influences hiring decisions. Also known as ‘Confirmation bias’, it allows us to quickly make sense of a complex environment by drawing upon relevant known information to substantiate our reasoning. Since it is anchored on personal experience, it is by default arbitrary and can give rise to an incorrect assessment.
Other forms of bias include ‘Contrast bias’, when a candidate is compared with the previous one instead of comparing his or her individual skills and attributes to those required for the job. ‘Halo bias’ is when a recruiter sees one great thing about a candidate and allows that to sway opinion on everything else about that candidate. The opposite is ‘Horns bias’, where the recruiter sees one bad thing about a candidate and lets it cloud opinion on all their other attributes. Again, predictive analytics precludes all these forms of bias by sticking to the facts.
https://sapia.ai/blog/workplace-unconscious-bias/
Age is firmly on the agenda in the world of recruitment, yet it has been reported that over 50% of recruiters who record age in the hiring process do not employ people older than themselves. Disabled candidates are often discriminated against because recruiters cannot see past the disability. Even these fundamental stereotypes and biases can be avoided through data-driven analytics that cut to the core in matching attitudes, skills and personality to job requirements.
Once objective decisions have been made, companies need to have the confidence not to overturn them and revert to reliance on one-to-one interviews, which have low predictive power. The CIPD cautions against this and advocates a pure, data-driven approach: ‘When it comes to making final decisions, the more data-driven recruiting managers can be, the better’.
The government’s strategy for social mobility states that ‘tackling the opportunity deficit – creating an open, socially mobile society – is our guiding purpose’ but that ‘by definition, this is a long-term undertaking. There is no magic wand we can wave to see immediate effects.’ Being aware of bias is just the first step in minimising its negative effect in the hiring process. Algorithmic hiring is not the only solution but, if supported by the government and key trade bodies, it can go a long way towards remedying the inherent weakness in current recruitment practice. Once the UK’s leading businesses begin to witness the benefits of a genuinely diverse workforce in terms of increased productivity and profitability, predictive hiring will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Related
Blog
Neuroinclusion by design. Not by exception.
Why neuroinclusion can’t be a retrofit and how Sapia.ai is building a better experience for every candidate.
In the past, if you were neurodivergent and applying for a job, you were often asked to disclose your diagnosis to get a basic accommodation – extra time on a test, maybe the option to skip a task. That disclosure often came with risk: of judgment, of stigma, or just being seen as different.
This wasn’t inclusion. It was bureaucracy. And it made neurodiverse candidates carry the burden of fitting in.
We’ve come a long way, but we’re not there yet.
Shifting from retrofits to inclusive-by-design
Over the last two decades, hiring practices have slowly moved away from reactive accommodations toward proactive, human-centric design. Leading employers began experimenting with:
- Sharing interview questions in advance
- Replacing group exercises with structured simulations
- Offering a variety of assessment formats
- Co-designing assessments with neurodiverse candidates
But even these advances have often been limited in scope, applied to special hiring programs or specific roles. Neurodiverse talent still encounters systems built for neurotypical profiles, with limited flexibility and a heavy dose of social performance pressure.
Hiring needs to look different.
Insight 1: The next frontier of hiring equity is universal design
Truly inclusive hiring doesn’t rely on diagnosis or disclosure. It doesn’t just give a select few special treatment. It’s about removing friction for everyone, especially those who’ve historically been excluded.
That’s why Sapia.ai was built with universal design principles from day one.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
- No time limits — Candidates answer at their own pace
- No pressure to perform — It’s a conversation, not a spotlight
- No video, no group tasks — Just structured, 1:1 chat-based interviews
- Built-in coaching — Everyone gets personalised feedback
It’s not a workaround. It’s a rework.
Insight 2: Not all “friendly” methods are inclusive
We tend to assume that social or “casual” interview formats make people comfortable. But for many neurodiverse individuals, icebreakers, group exercises, and informal chats are the problem, not the solution.
When we asked 6,000 neurodiverse candidates about their experience using Sapia.ai’s chat-based interview, they told us:
“It felt very 1:1 and trustworthy… I had time to fully think about my answers.”
“It was less anxiety-inducing than video interviews.”
“I like that all applicants get initial interviews which ensures an unbiased and fair way to weigh-up candidates.”
Insight 3: Prediction ≠ Inclusion
Some AI systems claim to infer skills or fit from resumes or behavioural data. But if the training data is biased or the experience itself is exclusionary, you’re just replicating the same inequity with more speed and scale.
Inclusion means seeing people for who they are, not who they resemble in your data set.
At Sapia.ai, every interaction is transparent, explainable, and scientifically validated. We use structured, fair assessments that work for all brains, not just neurotypical ones.
Where to from here?
Neurodiversity is rising in both awareness and representation. However, inclusion won’t scale unless the systems behind hiring change as well.
That’s why we built a platform that:
- Doesn’t rely on disclosure
- Removes ambiguity and pressure
- Creates space for everyone to shine
- Measures what matters, fairly
Sapia.ai is already powering inclusive, structured, and scalable hiring for global employers like BT Group, Costa Coffee and Concentrix. Want to see how your hiring process can be more inclusive for neurodivergent individuals? Let’s chat.
Blog
Skills Measurement vs Skills Inference – What’s the Difference and Why Does It Matter?
There’s growing interest in AI-driven tools that infer skills from CVs, LinkedIn profiles, and other passive data sources. These systems claim to map someone’s capability based on the words they use, the jobs they’ve held, and patterns derived from millions of similar profiles. In theory, it’s efficient. But when inference becomes the primary basis for hiring or promotion, we need to scrutinise what’s actually being measured and what’s not.
Let’s be clear: the technology isn’t the problem. Modern inference engines use advanced natural language processing, embeddings, and knowledge graphs. The science behind them is genuinely impressive. And when they’re used alongside richer sources of data, such as internal project contributions, validated assessments, or behavioural evidence, they can offer valuable insight for workforce planning and development.
But we need to separate the two ideas:
- Skills Measurement: Directly observing or quantifying a skill based on evidence of actual performance.
- Skills Inference: Estimating the likelihood that someone has a skill, based on indirect signals or patterns in their data.
The risk lies in conflating the two.
The Problem Isn’t Inference of Skills. It’s the Data Feeding It
CVs and LinkedIn profiles are riddled with bias, inconsistency, and omission. They’re self-authored, unverified, and often written strategically – for example, to enhance certain experiences or downplay others in response to a job ad.
And different groups represent themselves in different ways. Ahuja (2024) showed, for example, that male MBA graduates in India tend to self-promote more than their female peers. Something as simple as a longer LinkedIn ‘About’ section becomes a proxy for perceived competence.
Job titles are vague. Skill descriptions vary. Proficiency is rarely signposted. Even where systems draw on internal performance data, the quality is often questionable. Ratings tend to cluster (remember the year everyone got a ‘3’ at your org?) and can often reflect manager bias or company culture more than actual output.
Sophisticated ≠ Objective
The most advanced skill inference platforms use layered data: open web sources like job ads and bios, public databases like O*NET and ESCO, internal frameworks, even anonymised behavioural signals from platform users. This breadth gives a more complete picture, and the models powering it are undeniably sophisticated.
But sophistication doesn’t equal accuracy.
These systems rely heavily on proxies and correlations, rather than observed behaviour. They estimate presence, not proficiency. And when used in high-stakes decisions, that distinction matters.
Transparency (or Lack Thereof)
In many inference systems, it’s hard to trace where a skill came from. Was it picked up from a keyword? Assumed from a job title? Correlated with others in similar roles? The logic is rarely visible, and that’s a problem, especially when decisions based on these inferences affect access to jobs, development, or promotion.
Presence ≠ Proficiency
Inferred skills suggest someone might have a capability. But hiring isn’t about possibility. It’s about evidence of capability. Saying you’ve led a team isn’t the same as doing it well. Collecting or observing actual examples of behaviour allows you to evaluate someone’s true competence at a claimed skill.
Some platforms try to infer proficiency, too, but this is still inference, not measurement. No matter how smart the model, it’s still drawing conclusions from indirect data.
By contrast, validated assessments like structured interviews, simulations, and psychometric tools are designed to measure. They observe behaviour against defined criteria, use consistent scoring frameworks (like Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales, or BARS), and provide a transparent, defensible basis for decision-making. In doing this, the level or proficiency of a skill can be placed on a properly calibrated scale.
But here’s the thing: we don’t have to choose one over the other.
A Smarter Way Forward: The Hybrid Model
The real opportunity lies in combining the rigour of measurement with the scalability of inference.
Start with measurement
Define the skills that matter. Use structured tools to capture behavioural evidence. Set a clear standard for what good looks like. For example, define Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) when assessing interviews for skills. Using a framework like Sapia.ai’s Competency Framework is critical for defining what you want to measure.
Layer in inference
Apply AI to scale scoring, add contextual nuance, and detect deeper patterns that human assessors might miss, especially when reviewing large volumes of data.
Anchor the whole system in transparency and validation
Ensure people understand how inferences are made by providing clear explanations. Continuously test for fairness. Keep human oversight in the loop, especially where the stakes are high. More information on ensuring AI systems are transparent can be found in this paper.
This hybrid model respects the strengths and limits of both approaches. It recognises that AI can’t replace human judgement, but it can enhance it. That inference can extend reach, but only measurement can give you higher confidence in the results.
The Bottom Line
Inference can support and guide, but only measurement can prove. And when people’s futures are on the line, proof should always win.
References
Ahuja, A. (2024). LinkedIn profile analysis reveals gender-based differences in self-presentation among Indian MBA graduates. Journal of Business and Psychology.
Blog
Making Healthcare Hiring Human with Ethical AI
Hiring for care is unlike any other sector. Recruiters are looking for people who can bring empathy, resilience, and energy to the most demanding human roles. Whether it’s dental care, mental health, or aged care, new hires are charged with looking after others when they’re most vulnerable. The stakes are high.
Hiring for care is exactly where leveraging ethical AI can make the biggest impact.
Hiring for the traits that matter
The best carers don’t always have the best CVs.
That’s why our chat-based AI interview doesn’t screen for qualifications. It screens for the the skills that matter when caring for others. The traits that define a brilliant care worker, things like:
Empathy, Self-awareness, Accountability, Teamwork, and Energy.
The best way to uncover these traits is through structured behavioural science, delivered through an experience that allows candidates to open up. Giving candidates space to give real-life, open-text answers. With no time pressure or video stress. Then, our AI picks up the signals that matter, free from any demographic data or bias-inducing signals.
Candidates’ answers to our structured interview questions aren’t simply ticking boxes. They’re a window into how someone shows up under pressure. And they’re helping leading care organisations hire people who belong in care and those who stay.
Inclusion, built in
Inclusivity should be a core foundation of any talent assessment, and it’s a fundamental requirement for hirers in the care industry.
When healthcare hirers use chat-based AI interviews, designed to be inclusive for all groups, candidates complete their interviews when and where they choose, without the bias traps of face-to-face or phone screening. There are no accents to judge, no assumptions, just their words and their story.
And it works:
- 91.8% of carer candidates complete their interviews
- Carer candidates report 9/10 Candidate Satisfaction with their interview experience
- 80% of candidates would recommend others to apply
- Every candidate receives personalised feedback, regardless of the outcome
Drop-offs are reduced, and engagement & employer brand advocacy go up. Building a brand that candidates want to work for includes providing a hiring experience that candidates want to complete.
Real outcomes in care hiring
Our smart chat already works for some of the most respected names in healthcare and community services. Here’s a sample of the outcomes that are possible by leveraging ethical AI, a validated scientific assessment, wrapped in an experience that candidates love:
Anglicare – a leading provider of aged care services
- Time-to-offer dropped from 40+ days to just 14
- Candidate pool grew by 30%
- Turnover dropped by 63%
Abano Healthcare – Australasia’s largest dental support organisation
- 1,213 recruiter hours saved in the first month (67 hours per individual hiring team member)
- $25,000 saved in screening and interviewing time
Berry Street – a not for profit family & child services organisation
- Time-to-hire down from 22 to 7 days
- 95.4% of candidates completed their chat interviews
A smarter way to hire
The case study tells the full story of how Sapia.ai helped Anglicare, Abano Healthcare, and Berry Street transform their hiring processes by scaling up, reducing burnout, and hiring with heart.
Download it here: