When Recruiters Themselves Become the Bias Factor – Gender Effects in Hiring

End at the door: Biased Recruiter.

Recruiting presents numerous challenges, including talent shortages, rising candidate expectations, and the introduction of new technologies designed to streamline the recruitment process. That bias—unconscious prejudice—plays a role is well established. Typically, we focus on applicants: women in tech roles face worse odds, candidates with “foreign-sounding” names must apply more frequently, and older applicants are often screened out.

But a study from Australia shifts the lens:

Recruiters' own gender influences hiring outcomes, often more than expected, directly shaping which candidates advance.

What the study shows

The research by Joanne Hall and Asha Rao (RMIT University, 2024) examined the cybersecurity sector—a field plagued by severe talent shortages worldwide, where only about 25% of workers are women.

The setup:

• 78 cybersecurity recruiters were surveyed.

• The focus wasn’t on technical skills, but on the soft skills they prioritized in graduates.
  

The results:

• Female recruiters valued people-oriented competencies such as communication, teamwork, and empathy.

• Male recruiters placed greater emphasis on task-oriented skills such as problem-solving, technical persistence, and task focus.
  

These statistically significant differences mean recruiter gender influences which candidates progress.

Why this matters

Assuming diverse panels alone ensures fairness misses a key point: gender imbalances can intensify hiring biases driven by recruiter characteristics.

Concrete implications:

• In male-dominated fields like IT or cybersecurity, a fixation on “hard skills” risks sidelining social competencies.

• Conversely, panels dominated by female recruiters may lean toward social skills, undervaluing technical potential.

• The real risk: panels filter candidates through their own bias, often overlooking those with both technical and social skills.
  

Real-world examples

Case 1: The tech start-up

At a tech start-up, mainly male hiring managers prioritize coding skills. Social skills are often viewed as secondary, leading to communication breakdowns when challenges arise.

Case 2: The consulting firm

At a consulting firm, female recruiters emphasize the importance of teamwork and presentation. An analytical candidate with valuable technical skills is rejected due to a perceived lack of charisma.

Case 3: The diverse panel

A diverse panel of men and women with varied backgrounds leads to robust yet balanced discussions, combining technical and social perspectives to inform stronger hiring decisions.

What this means for recruiting teams

To ensure the recruiter’s gender doesn’t unconsciously tip the scales, teams need clear structures.

Practical tips:

• Intentionally diversify panels

  Ensure your panel includes a balanced mix of genders as well as a variety of roles (human resources, technical experts, and hiring managers). This combination can help identify and minimize one-sided perspectives.
  

• Standardize evaluation criteria

  Develop a structured list of evaluation questions that all panel members use during the interview process with candidates. Relying on these objective criteria helps reduce decisions based on instinct, which in turn reduces bias.
  

• Make soft skills measurable

  Replace vague descriptions of soft skills with clear, observable behaviors. For example, rather than noting someone has a “strong presence,” note that they “asked questions and proposed solutions during the case study.”
  

• Implement bias training

  Encourage recruiters to participate in training that helps them recognize any personal biases. Regular reflection on their own decision-making processes can make these influences more visible and manageable.
  

But what about the role of hiring managers?

Here’s the tricky part: in many cases, hiring managers (often male in technical fields) have the final say. If their criteria overemphasize “hard skills,” diversity goals won’t materialize.

Talking points recruiters can use:

• Research shows that diverse teams are more innovative and more profitable.

• The risk: hiring only “hardcore skills” builds sameness—and fragility.

• The solution: promote combination skills—teams need “Task + People.”
  

What this means for candidates

Applicants can also take steps to avoid being filtered out by unconscious bias:

• Communicate both sides of your skill set: show technical and social abilities.

• Give examples: “In project X, I optimized the system (task skill) AND coordinated the team (people skill).”

• Ask questions: actively inquire about team culture and skill expectations—this signals reflection and adaptability.
  

Opportunities and risks

Opportunities:

• Companies that take gender diversity in their panels seriously can reduce one-sided bias.

• Balancing hard and soft skills more effectively produces more resilient teams.

Risks:

• Smaller organizations with homogenous HR teams risk falling into the same patterns repeatedly.

• Without standardized processes, hiring outcomes remain unconsciously tied to the gender of the recruiter.
  

Recruiting needs to look in the mirror

Bias is often discussed on the candidate side, but this study shows that recruiters also introduce bias. Different perspectives can be valuable—if consciously combined.

For companies, this means:

• Build diverse panels.

• Define clear, measurable criteria.

• Educate hiring managers not to rely solely on “their” perspective.
  

For candidates, it means:

• Make both hard and soft skills visible.

• Clearly frame your added value in both dimensions.
  

Bottom line:  It’s not about eliminating bias—it’s about recognizing it and balancing it.