How many times have you submitted a job application for a role where you don't know the salary, or maybe even the company name?
Create a free account to read this article
or signup to continue reading
Or worse, YOU are asked to state in the application what salary you are looking for without any idea as to what they are willing to pay?
Talk about inviting you to shoot yourself in the foot before they've even read your resume.
In the modern workforce, hiring practices are often shrouded in ambiguity. From undisclosed salary ranges to vague job descriptions, the lack of transparency creates inequitable conditions, leaving candidates at a disadvantage and reinforcing systemic inequalities.
As discussions around fair employment gain momentum, organisations must recognise that openness in hiring is not just an ethical responsibility - it is an opportunity to build stronger, more equitable workplaces.
One of the most glaring examples of hiring opacity is the failure to disclose salary ranges in job postings.
This practice disproportionately affects women and marginalised groups, who statistically negotiate less than their male counterparts.
Without clear benchmarks, candidates are left guessing at fair compensation, often undervaluing themselves while employers benefit from the imbalance.
Organisations argue that hiding salaries maintains flexibility in negotiations, but this rationale often disguises deeper inequities.
Studies have shown that transparent salary ranges lead to better pay equity, as candidates enter negotiations with informed expectations.
Employers that uphold transparency foster trust, reduce wage gaps, and attract talent seeking ethical workplace cultures.
Beyond salaries, unclear job descriptions further complicate hiring.
Employers often list an excessive number of qualifications, discouraging otherwise capable candidates from applying: if had a dollar for every graduate/entry level job citing a minimum of five years' experience as a requirement, I could probably take you out to lunch.
My own experience, backed by research, indicates that women, for instance, only apply for roles when they meet nearly all listed criteria, whereas men often apply with fewer qualifications. This means the merit field is rarely fair.
Transparency means refining job descriptions to reflect actual role expectations, not a wish list of unattainable credentials.
By focusing on skills over arbitrary requirements, companies can promote fair hiring and widen the talent pool, ensuring candidates are evaluated on capability rather than exclusionary criteria.
But transparency extends beyond job listings - it must also be embedded in hiring decisions.
Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, influences the selection process, often disadvantaging historically underrepresented groups. Without accountability, hiring remains susceptible to subjective judgments that perpetuate inequities.
To combat this, companies often implement structured interviews with standardised evaluation criteria. It is believed that data-driven hiring, informed by clear performance metrics rather than subjective assessments, mitigates bias and ensures fairer outcomes.
Furthermore, Artificial Intelligence and automated hiring tools have added new layers to the transparency debate. While AI can streamline recruitment, opaque algorithms risk reinforcing bias rather than eliminating it.
If organisations rely on black-box hiring technology without disclosing decision-making processes, candidates face systemic exclusion with no means of recourse.
MORE FROM ZOE WUNDENBURG:
Employers using AI must openly communicate how these AI-driven screening tools operate and audit them for fairness.
Ethical AI usage in hiring requires transparency in algorithm design, oversight from diverse experts, and mechanisms to challenge automated decisions. Without these safeguards, digital hiring becomes just another opaque barrier to equity.
The path to workplace equity begins with embracing transparency as a guiding principle.
Companies that prioritise openness, from salary disclosure to clear hiring procedures, earn trust and attract diverse talent.
When hiring practices are accessible and fair, organisations don't just comply with emerging regulations; they foster cultures where employees feel valued and empowered.
Transparency is not just a compliance issue - it is the foundation of workplace equity.
But the question remains: does this really make it more fair? Or just easier? How can we accommodate the out-of-left-field candidate in this equation? How does a hirer fit a "gut feel" or "cultural fit" into metrics?
These elements can absolutely be exploited as an excuse for personal bias in the hiring process and leaning too heavily into this can lead to hiring the "same" people over and over again resulting in reduced diversity and bland perspective.
But, despite the technological leap we've seen in the past 20 years in this space, especially over the past five to 10 years, I think it's important to remember to leave at least some of the "human" element in "human resources".
Don't you?
- Zoë Wundenberg is a careers consultant and un/employment advocate at impressability.com.au, and a regular columnist for ACM. She is a volunteer with the Voices of Farrer.
