The Silent Bias Undermining Sustainable Hiring (and What You Can Do About It)
The most pervasive, and often overlooked, barrier to achieving sustainable outcomes in hiring and other organizational processes is status quo bias.
What Is Status Quo Bias?
Status quo bias is the inclination to prefer existing procedures, norms, and defaults simply because they are familiar. The current way of doing things becomes perceived as the right, and sometimes the only, way.
I’ve seen this dynamic in both large bureaucratic organizations and smaller, progressively minded ones. In each case, status quo bias creates tension between leadership and staff, alienates certain groups, and reinforces the perception that decisions are being dictated from the top without fully considering the perspectives of the people closest to the work.
Yet, this often runs counter to what leaders say they want. Leaders may hope for different outcomes, while continuing to rely on the same methods. This creates a mismatch between goals and the avenues used to achieve them.
Why Status Quo Bias Happens: The Human Side
Our tendency to get stuck in current behaviors or ways of operating even when they no longer serve the organization is not uncommon. Status quo bias originates from very human instincts. Here are just a few reasons why I believe hesitancy shows up from people at all levels of a company when change is on the table:
A conscious or subconscious desire for control, especially when we fear a new process could jeopardize the result we want.
A belief that involving more or different people will overcomplicate the process or slow progress. We may worry that a less speedy hiring timeline could mean we miss out on the best candidates.
An assumption that the current procedure is already the best, and often the most straightforward, option.
A fear of challenging decisions or systems created by those in more powerful or influential positions. In other words, not wanting to “rock the boat.”
Our proclivity to stick to the status quo is evident in neuroscientific research. According to a University College London study, difficult decisions activate a brain region involved in conflict processing, leading people to lean more heavily on the status quo and become more prone to judgment errors, choosing options even when they are not supported by evidence (Fleming et al., 2010).
While status quo bias reflects normal human behavior, organizations can and must do better. Relying on familiar pathways year after year does not build trust, bolster company culture, or support equitable outcomes. I have witnessed these concerns dissipate once teams run structured experiments that challenge their assumptions.
Reflecting on Status Quo Bias in Your Hiring
Are your hiring criteria informed by input from the communities or teams most affected by the role or from a few members at the top of an organization or team?
Does the head of your department lead the hiring team, or are other staff members such as your DEIB manager, HR liaison, or a less senior staff member partnering to co-support the process?
When new ideas emerge from staff, are you hearing statements from leaders such as: “I’ve been doing this for years; I know how to lead a hiring process,” or ”If it ain’t broke, why would we fix it?”
Addressing status quo bias requires some level of change management.
The 3-I’s that Help Disrupt the Status Quo
I suggest tapping into the spirit of the following values to break down barriers blocking diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging (DEIB) inspired developments.
1. Inclusivity
During the design and decision-making phases, it is important to include the individuals who will work most closely with the role being filled. Excluding key stakeholders whose insights could strengthen the process can create inertia and surface avoidable challenges. When these individuals aren’t involved early and often, organizations risk selecting candidates misaligned with the role. Turnover and its associated costs likely will follow.
2. Innovation
Relying on familiar approaches without cultivating a culture of experimentation often leads to stagnation rather than creative problem-solving and ingenuity. The Pareto Principle applies here: small, strategic, and sometimes creative changes can create impactful shifts.
3. Iteration
This isn’t about creating busywork or upending every part of every system. Iteration is about improving the process where there are openings to each time rather than overhauling everything at once. Trying a new process doesn’t guarantee a perfect first attempt. Change requires piloting, learning, and adjusting. Iteration is especially valuable when there is resistance to change; agreeing to implement three shifts instead of ten can still move a team meaningfully forward.
The Impact of Being Open to Change
Including colleagues from diverse backgrounds and levels in hiring and other critical processes does more than support strong candidate selection, it deepens employee engagement through professional development opportunities and other DEIB advancing-activities.
A willingness to amend other elements of your recurring projects fosters a culture of learning and provides an opportunity to strengthen your business’s institutional memory. Team members can capture what worked, what didn’t (this time or for whom), and where the organization can evolve. Ultimately, it lays the foundation for a workplace that welcomes new ideas and strives to develop a fair process. Partnering with clients and in past professional positions, I have seen steps towards this state transform desired outcomes into superior results.
A strategic thought partner can help offer independent insights, highlight areas for growth, and deliver targeted process improvement recommendations. If your organization is ready to break free from the constraints of status quo bias, commit to both internal and external inclusive frameworks, and build a culture where diverse perspectives drive better experiences, Found Creative Connections can help. Found partners with organizations to strengthen engagement with your community and embed DEIB principles into organizational decision-making.
References
Fleming, S. M., Mars, R. B., Gladwin, T. E., & Haggard, P. (2010). Overcoming status quo bias in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 107(13), 6005–6009.
Haley, C. (2022). Explaining the 80‑20 Rule with the Pareto Distribution. D‑Lab Berkeley. (https://dlab.berkeley.edu/news/explaining-80-20-rule-pareto-distribution)
University College London (UCL). (2010). Why we stick with the status quo. ScienceDaily summary of UCL research on the neural basis of default choices. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100315162041.htm)
Zheng, H., Li, W., & Wang, D. (2022). Expertise diversity of teams predicts originality and long-term impact in science and technology. [Preprint/Published work].