In their recent article, "Even grounds: assessing discrimination in recruitment in the public sector" published in the International Journal of Public Sector Management, Bert Leysen and Pieter-Paul Verhaeghe report no discrimination in the CV-screening phase for governmental vacancies, except for a significant gender bias. The article is available here.
Public sector employers often struggle to meet diversity targets, even with standardized processes designed to ensure fairness in recruitment. This raises a critical question: Is hiring discrimination a key driver of the continued underrepresentation of ethno-national minorities and individuals with different health statuses in the public sector? This study examines this question within the context of the Flemish regional government.
The study centres on a standardised, submitting 437 fictitious applications to 207 job vacancies within the Flemish government. Matched applications were identical in qualifications but differed on signals of ethno-national origin (Moroccan or Polish vs Belgian), gender and health status (signalling an impairment vs none). Hiring discrimination is then measured by comparing the callback rates for invitations to the next selection round between these different profiles.
No statistically significant discrimination based on ethno-national origin or health status was found in the CV-screening phase. However, the study uncovered a significant gender bias: male recruiters were significantly more likely to invite male applicants than female applicants (62.9% vs. 39.0%), suggesting the presence of in-group favouritism, or homophily, among male recruiters.
This research has two main limitations. First, the study’s focus on the initial CV screening phase is a limitation inherent to the method, as discrimination can occur at other recruitment stages. Second, the sample size was insufficiently large to conduct detailed intersectional analyses such as testing whether the observed gender bias varies by job type (e.g. in traditionally male- or female-dominated occupations) or interacts with ethno-national origin across different job levels.
The findings, particularly the absence of hiring discrimination against ethno-national minorities and individuals with different health statuses, provide several implications. First, for Flemish public administrators, this study offers a data-driven directive: resources should be strategically redirected from combating hiring discrimination towards initiatives that attract more candidates from these specific communities and ensure their retention after hiring. Additionally, this study offers a crucial lesson for the private sector by demonstrating that the public sector’s standardized processes provide a successful model for mitigating ethnic- and health-based discrimination. Finally, in a context of declining public trust in government, the findings offer a crucial counter-narrative. They provide empirical evidence that the public sector’s initial hiring phase is procedurally fair for candidates, regardless of ethno-national origin or health status.
This study provides a rare empirical test of hiring discrimination in the under-tested public sector, contrasting with the extensive focus on the private sector labour markets. It advances correspondence testing methodology by employing a job-category-agnostic approach, enhancing external validity beyond studies that typically target a limited set of occupations. The study also explores the less-studied ground of health-status discrimination.
Citation: Leysen, B., Verhaeghe, P.-P., & Derous, E. (2025). Even grounds: assessing discrimination in recruitment in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2024-0193
