In recent years, we’ve seen a strong push for greater equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the nonprofit sector. Most organizations genuinely strive to create inclusive workplaces, and many would confidently say they’re doing their best. But are we truly inclusive, or are we sometimes just checking a box?
The reality is that bias is always present. It is human nature, shaped by our experiences, beliefs, and the way things have always been done. Change can be uncomfortable, and sometimes we reassure ourselves that we’re making great progress when, in reality, there is still work to do.
As recruiters, we have seen firsthand how bias, whether unconscious or deliberate, affects hiring decisions. Despite years of educating hiring teams to reduce it, bias still surfaces in subtle ways. That is why, as an organization, we recently brought in a consultant to give us a refresher on identifying and preventing bias. Even those of us who work in this space need to keep sharpening our awareness. That said, significant progress is being made, and most hiring teams genuinely strive for fairness, even if they don't always recognize bias when it occurs.
Disclaimer: We are not experts in EDI, bias training, or anti-oppression work. Our observations are strictly anecdotal, based on our experiences as recruiters supporting hiring teams. We encourage organizations to seek expert guidance from professionals in this field to deepen their understanding and improve their practices.
Where Bias Shows Up in Hiring
1. The Problem With “Fit”
Hiring for “fit” is something we talk about all the time. And yes, alignment between a candidate and the role matters; skills, experience, and values should match the organization’s needs. But when a candidate is dismissed with little explanation beyond “they’re just not a fit,” that can be a red flag. If this phrase comes up often in hiring decisions, it is worth asking: What does ‘fit’ really mean in this case?
2. Bias Against Neurodivergent Candidates
I recently worked with a nonprofit that had a brilliant candidate, highly qualified, deeply passionate about the mission, and with excellent technical skills. But after the interview, the hiring team said, “Something just felt off. Maybe they’re too quiet?”
That hesitation had nothing to do with the candidate’s ability to do the job; it was about comfort levels. Neurodivergent professionals, including those with autism or ADHD, often have different communication styles. Without realizing it, we might dismiss a great candidate simply because they do not interact in the way we expect.
3. “They Won’t Fit With the Team”
This one often comes up when a candidate does not match the team’s existing dynamics. But what does that really mean? Are we prioritizing shared backgrounds and personalities over diversity of thought and experience? Expanding the team’s perspectives is a strength, not a weakness.
4. What Really Drives Hiring Decisions?
When choosing between candidates, what factors weigh the most? Are decisions based on clear, measurable qualifications, such as years of experience, fundraising results, or specialized skills? Or do softer, more subjective factors, such as personality, communication style, or shared interests, play a bigger role? Soft skills matter, but personal preferences should not tip the scales.
5. Commonalities Can Lead to Unconscious Bias
It is natural to feel drawn to candidates with whom we share commonalities, whether that is a mutual hobby, a shared alma mater, or a similar background. But when these connections subtly influence hiring choices, they can create an uneven playing field. Does a candidate truly stand out because they are the best for the role, or because they remind us of ourselves?
6. The “Courtesy Consideration”
I have seen highly qualified candidates passed over while someone with no relevant experience is considered, sometimes because they are connected to a board member or donor. Relationship-based hiring is common, but these decisions should be made with fairness and transparency, not just out of courtesy.
Why This Matters: The Benefits of Inclusive Hiring
Inclusive hiring is not just about fairness; it makes organizations stronger.
✔ Diverse teams make better decisions. Research shows that organizations with varied perspectives are more creative and effective problem-solvers.
✔ A wider talent pool means stronger hires. Questioning bias helps us find great candidates we might have overlooked.
✔ Better representation leads to better service. Nonprofits serve diverse communities, and a workforce that reflects those communities improves impact.
We all want to do meaningful work and create positive change. That starts with hiring the best people, not just the most familiar ones.
Moving Forward: A More Conscious Hiring Approach
Bias is not something we can fully eliminate, but we can take steps to recognize and minimize its impact:
✅ Challenge the “fit” narrative. Instead of dismissing a candidate with vague reasons, ask: Is this about job-related qualifications, or personal preference?
✅ Use structured interviews. Standardized questions reduce subjective decision-making and ensure fair evaluation.
✅ Take a second look. If someone is labeled “awkward” or “not a culture fit,” pause and ask why. Could it be unconscious bias?
✅ Focus on skills, not comfort levels. Are we prioritizing measurable qualifications, or just gravitating toward people who feel familiar?
✅ Invest in bias training. Small shifts in awareness lead to more inclusive hiring practices.
Final Thought: Awareness Leads to Change
Bias is not about bad intentions; it is about ingrained habits we may not even notice. The more we acknowledge and challenge these biases, the closer we get to hiring the best people for the job, not just the most familiar ones.
So next time you are in a hiring discussion, ask yourself:
Are we truly evaluating this candidate fairly, or are we falling into old patterns?
Because when we do the work to recognize bias, we do not just change hiring; we change lives.