Editor’s note: WRAL TechWire’s newest contributor is Dr. Sarah Glova, a globally recognized speaker, successful entrepreneur, university instructor, and business consultant. A seasoned educator and entrepreneur, Sarah is CEO of the award-winning digital media firm, Reify Media, With a Ph.D. in Instructional Technology and a Master of Science in Technical Communication, she is dedicated to cultivating forward-thinking work environments.

+++

RALEIGH – Last year we heard about “quiet quitting”; this year, I keep hearing about “quiet hiring.” 

If “quiet quitting” is an employee ghosting their employer (ex. simply not showing up to work, resigning by text message, or leaving a resignation letter on the desk without warning), “quiet hiring” is an employer ghosting potential candidates by filling an open position without publicly posting job openings. 

With “quiet hiring,” companies rely on internal referrals, targeted headhunting, and networking to find qualified applicants. (I’ve also heard this approach called “hidden jobs,” “unadvertised jobs,” or “invisible jobs.”)

Sarah Glova

It’s not a new practice—but it’s getting attention

There’s a spotlight on the labor market right now thanks to two big trends: (1) an increasingly competitive job market and (2) recent large-scale corporate layoffs. 

Between these headlines, employers struggle to find qualified candidates—especially when layoff announcements prevent them from posting publicly about open positions.

And, sure—referrals have always been an important part of hiring practices. But for job seekers, quiet hiring can present a significant challenge because it narrows the opportunity for candidates to find roles. Candidates who rely on traditional job search methods (like online job boards, company websites, LinkedIn) may miss out on opportunities that are only shared through referrals or networking. 

This can be especially damaging for individuals who lack a strong professional network or who are new to the job market. 

Why “quiet hiring” is terrible for tech

Research has shown that referral-based hiring tends to favor people who are already well-connected in the industry. In tech, the well-connected are usually white men.

If you have to be referred by someone in tech in order to get an “invisible job,” then that means you’re more likely to be referred if you’re known and remembered by a white man, since white men make up a large percentage of the tech workforce (and have, historically, had more opportunities to build professional networks). It’s the old, “it’s not who you know, it’s who knows you” at work for inequity.  

Hiring practices that rely on referrals can limit opportunities for women and people of color who may not have the same access to networks and connections.

In other words—employers that rely too heavily on referrals and networking for “quiet hiring” may exacerbate existing inequalities in the job market, contributing to a lack of diversity and leaving behind those without strong social and professional networks.

No, it’s not just “politically incorrect”

And, as a reminder—diversity is crucial. It’s not just “nice to have”; it’s imperative.

A homogenous work environment can have several negative impacts, including limiting innovation, reducing competitiveness, and potentially leading to legal and reputational risks. So it’s about more than being politically correct. Sure, there are legal and ethical reasons for promoting diversity, but the practical benefits go way beyond compliance. 

Diverse teams can bring a range of perspectives and experiences to problem-solving, leading to more creative and innovative solutions. A diverse workforce can also help companies better understand and serve their customers. 

And, if you want the strictly business approach—studies have shown that diverse teams can be more productive and perform better financially than homogeneous teams.

Real issues from a lack of diversity in tech

I remember following the saga of facial recognition technology offered by IBM—starting in 2018, when researchers found that the company’s facial recognition technology was less accurate at identifying the gender of darker-skinned individuals and women. 

The issue was attributed, in part, to the fact that the data used to train the technology was not diverse enough—and many critics said that if the teams had been more diverse, these errors would have been discovered much earlier. 

What followed was a series of criticisms and concerns about how the technology could reinforce biases and perpetuate discrimination. Of course, IBM responded by releasing a dataset specifically designed to help improve the accuracy of facial recognition technology for all skin tones and genders, and the company publicly announced that it was committed to increasing diversity in its workforce. 

But by 2020, IBM sunset the technology, citing concerns about how it was being used in surveillance. CEO Arvind Krishna sent an open letter to congress, saying that “…vendors and users of Al systems have a shared responsibility to ensure that Al is tested for bias, particularity when used in law enforcement, and that such bias testing is audited and reported.”

The whole saga was an example of how crucial diversity is in tech. As long as tech is solving real issues—in healthcare, climate science, education, agriculture, supply chain, transportation, criminal justice—for as long as tech is addressing challenges in the spaces that impact our day-to-day lives—then I think there is a “shared responsibility” (to borrow Krishna’s words) for ensuring that hiring practices continue to support efforts to expand diversity in tech. 

If “quiet hiring” can exacerbate existing inequalities in our tech workforce, then it’s not worth the damage. Let’s see a trend about “radically inclusive networking” instead.