Addressing The Hidden Biases in Executive Hiring
Debbie Morrison • October 24, 2023

In the corridors of corporate power, the recruitment and selection of executives has traditionally been a carefully curated process. While this careful approach is commendable, many executive teams and boardrooms still lack the rich tapestry of gender, racial, and cultural diversities that their companies profess, potentially jeopardising the richness of diversity and the competitive advantage it brings to leadership teams.


For decades, businesses have hailed the importance of diversity, and the values of equal representation and inclusivity. While overt discrimination might no longer be as rampant, the subtle nemesis of unconscious bias still plays a pivotal role. As we unravel the fabric of executive hiring processes, we discover hidden biases which can significantly impact business growth, performance, and the cultivation of a diverse leadership team.


Unconscious Bias in Executive Hiring: What It Is and Its Implications

At its core, unconscious bias refers to the preferences and prejudices we hold without awareness. It's an inherent human trait, driven by our brain's need to categorise and make quick judgments based on past experiences. 


What’s alarming is that such biases, more often than not, aren’t the result of conscious discrimination. They stem from deep-seated stereotypes or societal norms that we've absorbed over time. When left unchecked and translated to hiring, these biases can have detrimental effects, leading to a homogenous leadership team, which in turn has implications for business growth and performance.


A study by
Harvard Business Review highlighted that despite equal qualifications, a candidate's gender, name, or even hobbies can influence hiring decisions. 1 When biases creep into executive hiring, they limit the talent pool, skewing it towards candidates that 'look' or 'feel' right, rather than those who are objectively the best for the job.


From a business perspective, this is concerning.
McKinsey's landmark study found that companies with more diverse executive teams are 25% more likely to outperform their peers on profitability. When companies overlook diverse candidates due to hidden biases, they're not just bypassing talent—they're missing out on potential profits and innovative ideas.


How Boards Can Identify and Address Bias

Self-Awareness and Training: The first step to combating unconscious bias is recognizing its existence. Boards must commit to regular training that highlights the different forms of bias, from affinity bias (preferring those similar to ourselves) to confirmation bias (focusing on information that confirms our existing beliefs).


Diverse Hiring Panels:
Having a diverse group of individuals involved in the hiring process can help counteract individual biases. The broader the range of perspectives, the less likely a single biassed view will dominate.


Standardised Interview Processes:
Instead of free-form interviews, boards can employ a standardised set of questions and evaluation metrics. This reduces the influence of a candidate's background or extraneous details.


Anonymous Application Processes:
Some companies have started using processes where names, genders, and other potentially bias-triggering information are removed from applications.


Preventing Bias: Proactive Measures

While identifying biases is crucial, prevention is better than cure. Boards can employ the following strategies:


Diversify the Decision-making Team:
Ensuring that the team responsible for executive hires is diverse can help bring in multiple perspectives and reduce the impact of individual biases.


Standardise Interviews:
By asking every candidate the same set of questions in the same order, boards can ensure comparability and reduce the impact of biases on the decision-making process.


Use Data-driven Metrics:
Instead of relying on gut feelings or intuition, boards can emphasise the use of data-driven metrics to assess a candidate's potential and fit.


The Role of Executive Search Firms in Limiting Bias

While internal measures are essential, sometimes, the inherent biases are so deep-seated that an external perspective becomes invaluable. Executive search firms have the expertise and frameworks to source and evaluate candidates objectively. Partnering with a renowned executive search firm can help in the following ways:


Expertise and Objectivity:
These firms bring a level of expertise and objectivity to the hiring process, ensuring that the best candidates are shortlisted based solely on merit.

Wide-ranging Networks: They have extensive networks, allowing for a more diverse pool of candidates than a company might be able to source independently.


Bias-free Technologies:
Many top-tier search firms employ advanced AI technologies that help in unbiased candidate sourcing and assessment.


A study from
Harvard Business Review underscored the value of search firms, noting that companies that used such firms had leadership teams that were 30% more diverse than those who relied solely on internal recruitment processes.


The Urgency of Addressing Bias

The evidence is irrefutable. Addressing and eliminating bias in executive hiring isn’t just an ethical issue—it's a business concern. By limiting the pool from which leaders are drawn, companies can unintentionally stifle innovation, reduce market understanding, and even decrease financial returns.


For boards, the onus lies in not just recognising and preventing biases but in proactively seeking diverse leadership. Boards and executive teams must be introspective, willing to challenge their beliefs and processes. By doing so, they're not just promoting fairness but ensuring that their companies remain at the forefront of global business. So, the next time you sit in that boardroom, remember: diversity isn’t just a checkbox. It's a competitive advantage. 


By John Elliott June 26, 2025
You don’t hear about it on the nightly news. There’s no breaking story. No panic. No protests. Just rows of vegetables being pulled out of the ground with no plan to replant. Just farmers who no longer believe there’s a future for them here. Just quiet decisions — to sell, to walk away, to stop. And if you ask around the industry, they’ll tell you the same thing: It’s not just one bad season. It’s a slow death by a thousand margins. 1 in 3 growers are preparing to leaveIn September 2024, AUSVEG released a national sentiment report with a statistic that should have set off alarms in every capital city: 34% of Australian vegetable growers were considering exiting the industry in the next 12 months. Another one-third said they’d leave if offered a fair price for their farm. Source: AUSVEG Industry Sentiment Report 2024 (PDF) These aren’t abstract hypotheticals. These are real decisions, already in motion. For many, it’s not about profitability anymore, it’s about survival. This isn’t burnout. It’s entrapment. Behind the numbers are people whose entire identity is tied to a profession that no longer feeds them. Many are asset-rich but cash-poor. They own the land. But the land owns them back. Selling means walking away from decades of history. Staying means bleeding capital, month by month, in a system where working harder delivers less. Every year, input costs rise, fuel, fertiliser, compliance. But the farmgate price doesn’t move. Or worse, it drops. Retail World Magazine reports that even though national vegetable production increased 3% in 2023–24, the total farmgate value fell by $140 million. Growers produced more and earned less. That’s not a market. That’s a trap. What no one wants to say aloud The truth is this: many growers are only staying because they can’t leave. If you’re deep in debt, if your farm is tied to multi-generational ownership, if you’ve invested everything in equipment, infrastructure, or land access, walking away isn’t easy. It’s a last resort. So instead, you stay. You cut your hours. Delay maintenance. Avoid upgrades. Cancel the next round of planting. You wait for something to shift, interest rates, weather, prices and you pretend that waiting is strategy. According to the latest fruitnet.com survey, over 50% of vegetable growers say they’re financially worse off than a year ago. And nearly 40% expect conditions to deteriorate further. This isn’t about optimism or resilience. It’s about dignity and the quiet erosion of it. Supermarkets won’t save them, and they never planned to In the current model, supermarket pricing doesn’t reflect real-world farm economics. Retailers demand year-round consistency, aesthetic perfection, and lower prices. They don’t absorb rising input costs, they externalise them. They offer promotions funded not by their marketing budgets, but by the growers’ margins. Farmers take the risk. Retailers take the profit. And because the power imbalance is so deeply entrenched, there’s no real negotiation, just quiet coercion dressed up as "category planning." Let’s talk about what’s actually broken This isn’t just a market failure. It’s a policy failure. Australia’s horticulture system has been built on: Decades of deregulated wholesale markets Lack of collective bargaining power for growers Retailer consolidation that has created a virtual duopoly Export-focused incentives that bypass smaller domestic producers There’s no meaningful floor price for key produce lines. No national enforcement of fair dealing. No public database that links supermarket shelf price to farmgate return. Which means growers, like James, can be driven into loss-making supply contracts without ever seeing the true economics of their product downstream. But the real silence? It’s from consumers. Here’s what no one wants to admit: We say we care about “buying local.” We say we value the farmer’s role. We share those viral posts about strawberries going unsold or milk prices being unfair. And then we complain about a $4 lettuce. We opt for the cheapest bag of carrots. We walk past the "imperfect" produce bin. We frown at the cost of organic and click “Add to Cart” on whatever’s half price. We’re not just bystanders. We’re part of the equation. What happens when the growers go? At first, very little. Supermarkets will find substitutes. Importers will fill gaps. Large agribusinesses will expand into spaces vacated by smaller players. Prices will stay low, until they don’t. But over time, we’ll notice: Produce that travels further and lasts less. Fewer independent growers at farmer’s markets. Entire regions losing their growing identity. National food security becoming a campaign promise instead of a reality. And when the climate throws something serious at us, drought, flood, global supply shock, we’ll realise how little resilience we’ve preserved. So what do we do? We start by telling the truth. Australia is not food secure. Not if 1 in 3 growers are planning to exit. The market isn’t working. Not when prices rise at the shelf and fall at the farmgate. The solution isn’t scale. It’s fairness, visibility, and rebalancing power. That means: Mandating cost-reflective contracts between retailers and suppliers Enabling collective bargaining rights for growers Building transparent data systems linking production costs to consumer prices Introducing transition finance for smaller producers navigating reform and climate pressure And holding supermarkets publicly accountable for margin extraction But more than anything, it means recognising what we’re losing, before it's gone. Final word If you ate a vegetable today, it likely came from someone who’s considered giving up in the past year. Not because they don’t care. But because caring doesn’t pay. This isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about sovereignty, over what we eat, how we grow it, and who gets to stay in the system.  Because the next time you see rows of green stretching to the horizon, you might want to ask: How many of these fields are already planning their last harvest?
By John Elliott June 20, 2025
If you're leading an FMCG or food manufacturing business right now, you're probably still talking about growth. Your board might be chasing headcount approvals. Your marketing team’s pitching a new brand campaign. Your category team’s assuming spend will bounce. But your customer? They’ve already moved on. Quietly. Like they always do. The illusion of resilience FMCG has always felt protected, “essential” by nature. People still eat, wash, shop. It’s easy to assume downturns pass around us, not through us. But this isn’t 2020. Recessions in 2025 won’t look like lockdowns. They’ll look like volume drops that no promo can fix. Shrinking margins on products that no longer carry their premium. Quiet shelf deletions you weren’t warned about. The data’s already there. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, consumer spending is slowing in real terms , even as inflation eases. The Reserve Bank confirmed in May: household consumption remains subdued amid weak real income growth . And over 80% of Australians have cut back on discretionary food spending , according to Finder. They’re still shopping, just not like they used to. A managing director at a national food manufacturer told me recently: “We won a new product listing in April. By July, it was marked for deletion. The velocity wasn’t there, but neither was the shopper. We’d forecasted like 2022 never ended. Rookie mistake.” That one stuck with me. Because I’ve heard it before, just in different words.