Things are not going well when it comes to equality on the labour market: despite extensive research and growing attention, in OECD-countries people with a migration background have to send 1.5 times as many applications to find a job as people without a migration background. Internationally, the Netherlands is certainly not a frontrunner either. Where does it go wrong?

Not everything is discrimination

Lancee has been studying for years how characteristics over which you have no control are related to your chances on the labour market. An important distinction is crucial here, he explains: ‘Discrimination is prohibited by law. We speak of discrimination when people who are exactly equal in terms of qualifications still get different outcomes in a recruitment process. This may be, for example, because of their gender, age or ethnicity. But inequality in the labour market is broader than that. It also concerns social networks.’

Who you know determines your chances

Earlier, Lancee conducted research into the role of social networks in labour market outcomes. A labour market outcome is, for example, the chance of finding a job. He focused specifically on ethnic minorities. ‘I examined which types of relationships can contribute to a better position on the labour market. For instance, people with an ethnic background often know fewer people who are already ‘inside’ at an employer. That can mean they are less likely to be recommended as an applicant than someone with the same qualifications but a larger network.’

Research for the government

Lancee has carried out research commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science to see whether there is discrimination in the selection process for internships. In addition, Lancee is conducting research commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, which also includes the labour inspectorate. The labour inspectorate is small, so they want to know where they can best deploy their limited manpower. That is why Lancee is investigating in which sectors discrimination occurs most frequently. For both ministries, Lancee conducts research by sending fictitious job applications that are identical in content but come from different senders.

Where things go wrong in organisations
But inequality in the labour market is not just about discrimination. It is also about the underlying structures in companies and selection processes. Lancee: ‘In 2025 we completed a study on selection procedures. In it, we spoke to HR staff about how they select people for a job. Many HR professionals said they find it important to be able to make their own decisions in this process. They often see strict rules or quotas as a threat to their autonomy.’

At the same time, other research shows that larger organisations with their own HR department more often have standard procedures – and that, on average, less discrimination is visible there. More rules and agreements are therefore not always pleasant, but they do make the process more predictable and less dependent on gut feeling.

Scrapping the ‘klikgesprek’

One of the high‑risk parts of many selection procedures is the so‑called “chemistry interview” (in Dutch: klikgesprek). This is an informal conversation to get a feel for whether a candidate will ‘fit into the team’. Lancee is clear about this: ‘That’s where so much goes wrong. It often comes down to ‘it’s not what you know but who you know’, and we know from research that we tend to prefer people who are like ourselves. That also applies to recruitment procedures. Ultimately, it should be about whether someone is suitable for the job. If you can then still have a nice time together later at the pub, that’s a bonus, but it’s really not essential.’

What organisations can do

Despite all kinds of good intentions, not everyone has the same chances on the labour market yet. Moreover, things do not seem to be improving. So what could really help? According to Lancee: standardisation. ‘If you standardise the recruitment process as much as possible, there is no room for preferences without good justification or old boys’ network situations. You are not working with quotas, but with assessing as neutrally as possible which candidate is best. In fact, this is a form of professionalisation, and indirectly you are also tackling unequal opportunities.’

In concrete terms, this means, for example:

• drawing up a fixed list of questions in advance;
• determining in advance who will be on the selection committee;
• jointly establishing clear criteria and using these for all candidates.

Why standardisation is more effective than one‑off diversity training

In addition, Lancee also considers diversity policies necessary. One‑off diversity training sessions can help, but they cost a lot of time and money. With smart rules and systems, you can often achieve more, especially in large organisations. ‘Think of a digital system in which you have to indicate who is on the selection committee, making it clear whether there is sufficient variety in, for example, gender, skin colour or age. That is a small adjustment that can have a major impact on unequal opportunities.’

Lancee is realistic, though: ‘This kind of policy only works if an organisation genuinely wants it and also makes an effort to get employees on board. And of course, don’t forget to invest in teambuilding: if you abandon the chemistry chat, it is important to make sure colleagues still get along well with each other.’

Inequality doesn’t stop at the office door

By now, Lancee is looking beyond the labour market alone in his research. Together with colleagues, he is currently examining inequality in the labour market, the housing market and childcare. The big question is: do disadvantages stack up? Lancee: ‘It is becoming increasingly clear how strongly everything is interconnected. Without a job, it is harder to find a home; without a home, it is difficult to keep a job; without childcare, it is hard to work full‑time at all. Inequality in the labour market therefore cannot be seen separately from other forms of inequality. That makes it all the more important that we research these kinds of problems and make the differences as small as possible.’