Inclusivity in Design Hiring: Rethinking the Hiring Process
Note: I recently had the opportunity to appear on the Samelogic podcast. During our chat, Dwayne Samuels and I discussed several topics related to building strong Design teams. There were so many great discussion points that I’ve decided to break down the highlights into a couple of posts, starting with this one on inclusivity in UX hiring. This is a major aspect of team building that deserves a closer look, and it’s one I haven’t yet addressed on this blog. I hope you find it useful!
Throughout my career, I’ve had a lot of chances to think about hiring for design — what works, what doesn’t, and what the formula is for building a thriving team. I’ve published some of my thoughts on this topic in my last few posts, but one thing I didn’t touch on was the issue of inclusivity.
Over the years, I’ve seen how common hiring practices can feel outdated, counterproductive, and exclusive. As leaders, I believe we have a responsibility to make sure our hiring processes are as fair and equitable as possible, but too often we miss out on great talent because we’re creating unnecessary barriers in how we assess candidates. But I also believe it’s possible to change our approach to hiring for design functions to benefit both the candidates and our teams.
Rethinking outdated practices
Just because something has worked in the past, that doesn’t always mean it will work in the future, or even that it’s working now! Take design exercises as an example. I have a lot of strong opinions about these, but they mostly boil down to this: design exercises and other take-home projects are not the optimal way to assess a candidate’s skills or fit.
Why? A few reasons:
Design doesn’t happen in a vacuum. We don’t expect the designers, researchers, and writers on our teams to operate without support, collaboration, and feedback from their peers and cross-functional partners. So why have we made a siloed practice like design exercises become such a big part of the hiring process? You could have someone who nails a take-home exercise but doesn’t collaborate well with other team members. On the flip side, you could also overlook someone who didn’t do well on their assignment but would have been an amazing addition to the team. The conditions we’re putting our candidates through with these exercises don’t reflect reality, so why are we basing our hiring decisions on them?
Take-home exercises are inefficient. I know from experience how time-consuming these projects can be. These assignments can be multiple hours of work on the candidate’s end and a non-trivial amount of review time on the hiring team’s. And for what? Those resources could be better spent elsewhere. In addition, despite the hiring manager’s best efforts to “time box” the exercise, many candidates will work on it for as long as they want or as long as it takes, which leads me to my next point…
Inclusivity problems. Picture two candidates applying for the same role. One is single and early in life with lighter responsibilities. The other is a single mom juggling two kids and a demanding day job. Who do you think will have more time and energy to put into a design exercise? These candidates might both be equally talented and dedicated, but by giving them both the same task, you’re creating an uneven playing field. I’m not singling anyone out here, but it’s just a fact. People’s life situations can affect how well they perform on take-home projects, which is why these exercises can introduce a lot of inequality into the hiring process.
As leaders, we need to rethink how we’re assessing candidates. The industry is evolving, and we should be, too. If we want hiring to be more inclusive, efficient, and realistic, we have to create processes that reflect reality — as well as the values we preach in design: empathy, collaboration, and inclusion.
Redesigning design hiring
The question remains: How do we make hiring more inclusive? I think this is simpler than a lot of people believe, and as hiring managers, it can actually save us headaches in the long run. We’re designers, so why not think about hiring the same way we think about design problems?
We can do that by asking questions like:
Where are the gaps in the current system? Are there aspects of our hiring processes that make it harder for certain candidates to succeed?
Are we prioritizing collaboration? How can we replace isolated tasks with scenarios that reflect what real-life design work actually looks like?
How is this process fitting into people’s lives? Is the experience fair? Are we accommodating people’s schedules and life situations?
Can we simplify further? What steps can we refine or eliminate to reduce friction on both ends?
Does this align with our values? Are we emphasizing empathy, flexibility, and collaboration?
Have we prototyped and tested our process? Are we testing our hiring criteria to see how it works for diverse candidates?
Are we iterating? Are we seeking input from candidates and hiring teams to improve and refine our systems?
Is there a feedback system in place? Are we providing a way for candidates and hiring teams to share their feedback about the process?
There are plenty of ways to improve our hiring processes. We just have to be willing to adjust the approach. If you really want to use, say, an exercise to evaluate someone’s expertise, it just means making it more inclusive and true to reality. Try replacing a take-home assignment with a cross-functional whiteboard session. Incorporate portfolio presentations into the interview process. There are so many ways to see how candidates interact with others, develop their ideas, manage conflicts, and respond to real-time feedback. Get creative, and you can design a process that’s more fair, accurate, and comprehensive.
Putting the human back in hiring
As designers, we’re focused on putting people at the heart of our work. We should be doing the same in our hiring. Outdated practices can leave behind talented candidates, so I would advise any design leader to take a hard look at their current system. Ask yourself where the gaps are, create processes that simulate real-life work, and always be willing to seek feedback and iterate.
If we really want to build stronger, more inclusive, and better-performing teams, we need to approach hiring with the same empathy we apply to everything else we do. Putting people back at the center helps us uncover candidates’ true potential. The result: a space for diverse talent to thrive, make meaningful contributions, and elevate the whole organization. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic, and I’ll see you next time!
