Writing inclusive job adverts

Why the advert is where inclusion is won or lost

Most organisations talk about wanting diverse talent, but the job advert — the very first thing a candidate sees — is often still written in a way that signals: this role is for someone who looks like us. By the time a brilliant candidate has read the advert and decided not to apply, no amount of structured interviewing or blind-CV shortlisting can recover the opportunity.

The uncomfortable truth is that organisations tend to recruit in their own likeness. When I speak with recruitment teams, I often ask: what are you doing for yourselves? It's easy to talk about inclusion as a value; it's harder to look in the mirror and see how the language in your own adverts is quietly filtering out the very people you say you want to attract.

The problem with coded language

Research consistently shows that certain words read as masculine and others as feminine — and that masculine-coded adverts attract far fewer women candidates, while barely affecting male applicant numbers. Words such as "competitive", "dominant", "ninja", "rockstar" or "driven" sit at one end of the spectrum. But coded language goes beyond obvious adjectives:

• "High-energy team" — can signal an exclusionary culture for disabled or chronically ill applicants.
• "Work hard, play hard" — often reads as alcohol-centred socialising that excludes many people.
• "Cultural fit" — frequently functions as a proxy for homogeneity, rewarding candidates who resemble the existing team.
• "Exceptional communication skills" — can deter neurodivergent applicants who communicate differently but brilliantly.

None of these phrases are necessarily intended to exclude anyone. That is precisely the point: the barriers they create are invisible to the people writing the advert and painfully visible to the people reading it.

Essential versus desirable: an honest audit

One of the most practical things you can do is separate what the role genuinely requires from what would be nice to have — and be ruthlessly honest about which is which.

Studies on application behaviour show that many women will only apply when they meet close to 100% of listed criteria, while many men apply when they meet around 60%. An overloaded "essential" list does not raise the bar — it narrows the pool, and it narrows it in predictable, demographically skewed ways. Ask of every criterion:

• Does the job require this on day one, or is it something we can develop?
• Is this about the role, or about the way we've always hired for it?
• Could someone meet the underlying need a different way — different qualification, different experience?
• Is this a genuine requirement, or a proxy for something else (for example, a degree requirement where the role does not genuinely need degree-level thinking)?

Where a criterion is truly desirable rather than essential, say so clearly. Candidates who know they do not tick every box on a "nice to have" list will still apply; candidates who think they have failed an essential requirement will not.

Signalling genuine inclusion — not box-ticking

A diversity statement bolted to the bottom of a job advert does almost nothing on its own. Candidates — particularly those from under-represented groups — have become practised at reading the gap between what an organisation claims and what its advert actually communicates. If the body of the advert is full of coded language and an unrealistic criteria list, a one-line "we welcome applications from all backgrounds" disclaimer reads as precisely that: a disclaimer.

Genuine signals look different. They include:

• An explicit invitation to request reasonable adjustments at application stage, not just at interview.
• Salary transparency — the absence of a salary range disproportionately disadvantages women and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who are less likely to negotiate.
• Flexible working options stated up front, not as an afterthought for those brave enough to ask.
• Plain, jargon-free language that reflects respect for the reader's time and circumstances.
• A careers page and employer brand that shows real people — not a stock-photo veneer of diversity.

It is also worth thinking about where you advertise, not just what you say. A brilliant advert placed only on the channels your current team uses will reach more of the same people. Broadening distribution — specialist networks, community organisations, disability-confident job boards — is part of the work.

Accessible application routes

The advert itself is only one layer. The application process it leads to must also be examined:

• Is the application form accessible to screen readers?
• Does the process require candidates to create an account, upload multiple documents, and complete a lengthy form — all before they know if there is any human interest in their application?
• Is there a named contact who can answer questions? (Candidates from under-represented groups often have questions they are reluctant to ask through a generic inbox.)
• Is there an option to apply via a method other than a written form — a phone call, a brief video, a portfolio — where the role genuinely suits it?

Every unnecessary step in the process is a barrier. Some people have caring responsibilities that limit when and how long they can sit at a screen. Some have disabilities that make lengthy written applications disproportionately effortful. Keeping the process proportionate to what the role actually requires is not lowering standards; it is removing noise that has nothing to do with whether someone can do the job.

Connecting the advert to the wider recruitment strategy

An inclusive job advert does not exist in isolation. It is the opening of a conversation with a candidate — and the rest of that conversation must be consistent with what the advert promised. A warm, accessible, jargon-free advert that leads to a chaotic, inaccessible application process and an unstructured interview based on gut feel will undo everything the advert achieved.

This is why I always frame inclusive recruitment as a system rather than a series of individual tweaks. The advert, the shortlisting process, the interview structure and the onboarding experience all need to reinforce the same message: we assess people on their ability to do this job, and we remove barriers so they can show us that ability. Read more in the guide to inclusive recruitment, or explore the keynote and workshop on inclusive recruitment — a speaking topic I deliver to HR teams and leadership groups across the UK.

Where to start

If you are reviewing a job advert today, here is a practical starting point:

• Run the job description through a free gender-bias decoder tool to surface masculine- and feminine-coded language.
• Separate every criterion into "genuinely essential on day one" or "desirable / can develop" — and be honest.
• Read the advert as if you are a candidate who does not already know the organisation. Does it tell you what the role involves, what is expected, what support you will receive, and how to apply? Or does it tell you mostly about what you need to bring?
• Check whether reasonable adjustments are mentioned, and whether the contact details provided make it easy to ask questions.
• Look at the wider process: where does the advert link to, and is that destination accessible and proportionate?

Small changes compound. An advert that removes one piece of coded language, separates essential from desirable criteria, and adds a genuine adjustments invitation will reach more people, attract better-matched applicants, and signal to your whole market that inclusion is something you practise rather than merely claim. Listen to more on this topic in the Inclusion Bites podcast.