Resumes With "They/Them" Pronouns More Likely To Be Passed Over By Employers, According To New Report
Elon Musk finds it "interesting" that resumes with "they/them" pronouns are more likely to be overlooked in the hiring process. But is it really that big of a deal?
New findings by Business.com reveal that over 80% of nonbinary individuals believe that identifying as nonbinary affects their job search. In addition, approximately 51% of respondents feel that their gender identity has had a "very or somewhat negative" influence on their overall workplace experience. The study has garnered the interest of many people, including Twitter CTO Elon Musk.
Let's be honest, a lot of they/thems seem like they're rocking the boat. They're trying to force people to use their preferred pronouns after all, which is fine, but to expect all workplaces and the entire population to abide by their commands is pretty narcissistic.
The director of industry research at Business.com, Ryan McGonagill, says these findings convey just how much "work" is required surrounding inclusivity in the workplace. "We clearly have more work to do on several fronts. Over the past 10 years, DEIB efforts have been prioritized by many companies; however, the results of this study and past research show that teams in most industries aren’t proportionately representative of the U.S. population,” McGonagill informs CNBC. “And worse, many people (like the nonbinary individuals we spoke with in our research) feel like they don’t belong.”
He continues, "Companies should have clearly-outlined initiatives and timelines for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. On top of that, they should measure their employees’ sense of belonging. Investing in these efforts can only be positive for companies and team members alike."
The business website sent two identical fake resumes to 180 different job postings for entry-level candidates to test “whether or not the inclusion of gender-neutral pronouns impacts how employers perceive resumes.” They both had the name "Taylor Williams" on them, and the only difference is that one contained "they/them" pronouns under the name in the header. The phantom resumes that included they/them pronouns only received 8% less interest than those without, and received "fewer interview and phone screening invitations." Despite how small this difference is, the study's author seemed stunned.
Is it possible McGonagill is making this out to be a bigger deal than it actually is? Minus the 8%, I'd say the resumes with pronouns had a pretty good success rate. The author even added, "72% of managers said they’d contact the applicant on the control resume, but only 69% would want to interview the applicant whose resume contained 'they/them' pronouns." That's only a 3% difference and just further proves how little employers seem to care about pronouns.
According to the report, more than 64% of the companies they tested were Equal Opportunity Employers. “The law makes it clear that you cannot base any employment decision (hiring, terminating, or otherwise) based on their gender identity,” McGonagill adds. “It’s incredibly disappointing and unethical that many of the hiring managers in our study would disqualify a candidate for being authentic.” Again, McGonagill is making a big deal out of nothing, in my opinion. A good percentage of the phantom resumes with "they/them" were considered; he should be happy about that.
Evie deserves to be heard. Support our cause and help women reclaim their femininity by subscribing today.