Does fair ranking lead to fair recruitment outcomes? A study of interventions, interfaces, and interactions

• Fair exposure ≠ fair outcomes. Visibility in rankings does not guarantee equitable shortlisting in online recruitment. • Human and task factors matter. Recruiter behavior, task design, and candidate cues influence fairness beyond algorithms, as we show in user studies. • Design implications. Our findings translate into practical implications for model evaluations, interfaces, and recruiter practices to support equity. Personnel recruitment is increasingly mediated by Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), which rank candidates for job positions, making them a central decision-support tool in modern Human Resources (HR) processes. Often framed as an information retrieval (IR) problem, the ranking of candidates in ATS is typically driven by relevance to the job position, with algorithms sorting applicants according to a set of predefined criteria. In recent years, fairness-aware ranking methods have emerged to mitigate the risk of indirect discrimination, where the ordering of candidates may inadvertently favor one demographic group over another. These approaches are inspired by browsing models developed for web search and aim to balance candidate exposure based on protected characteristics. However, ATS in recruitment introduce unique challenges due to their high-stakes nature and the decision-making context in which they operate. In this paper, we present a series of user studies that explore the disconnect between fair exposure and fair outcomes in candidate shortlisting. We focus on how factors such as task design (e.g., how recruiters interact with candidate lists), individual representations of candidates (e.g., national origin cues), and ranking order influence both position bias and demographic balance. Our findings show that while demographic balance may be achieved in terms of ranking visibility, this does not necessarily translate to fair outcomes in terms of who gets shortlisted. Through a crowdsourced experiment and in-depth interviews with recruiters, we identify key task-level, individual, and ranking factors that mediate these effects. We conclude that fairness in ATS rankings is contingent not only on algorithmic design but also on the shortlisting tasks they support, as well as the interfaces, strategies, and assumptions that recruiters use when interacting with candidate lists. Based on these insights, we provide implications for the design of algorithms, interfaces, and recruitment processes that support fairer and more equitable recruitment outcomes.