Five things about resumes employers should leave behind
From Lena Tom (she/her), Meso’s Founder & President
Reviewing a resume appears to be a simple task — you look at the amount of experience and education an applicant has, gauge their knowledge, and ensure that the skills listed match the desired skills for the position, right?
Unfortunately, while this process represents a conventional way of reviewing resumes, it is not equitable. In fact, it contributes to disparities in the workplace by disproportionately benefiting white people, men, and those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder.
Here are a few things we need to change when we review resumes that will lead to more equitable opportunities for applicants:
Judging a candidate based on how a resume looks. If you asked 100 people, they will tell you 100 different things about how a resume “should” look in its format and style. Ultimately, the way a resume looks tells you very little about an applicant’s ability to do a job. People in different generations and from different countries have been taught different ways to style the best resume, so judging based on what we think a resume should look like may exclude people based on their age or country of origin. The antidote is to look at more substantive information that tells you about their work and skills.
Raising questions about “gaps” in work history. I’m not sure when we decided that a gap in employment makes someone less qualified, but I encourage you to throw that notion out with the rest of these dated practices. This is a no-win situation for a lot of applicants. Because so many employers find consecutive employment to be important, it can actually extend a candidate’s unemployment period and cause further difficulties for people looking for work. Additionally, it is unethical (and, in some cases, it may be illegal) to ask why someone has a gap in employment. If the gap is due to medical or pregnancy needs, you may be violating the American Disabilities Act, which essentially says you can’t ask someone about their health or disability needs before you make a job offer.
Expecting applicants to use the exact same software or technology that you use. Let’s say your job description asks for proficiency in Microsoft Word, but they instead list Google Docs on their resume. Would you say that this person is now unqualified for the job? While this is a simple example, we see this happen routinely, particularly in jobs that require high technical skills. As technology advances and proliferates, we have to be realistic and understand that someone may not have the opportunity to master every tool but that many skills are highly transferable. We should be critical about when and where a specific technical skill is needed.
Using “years of experience” as a qualifier. If you work in organizing or on campaigns, you know that it can feel like dog years, and the amount one learns in a compressed amount of time does not correlate with that of many other industries. That alone should give us reason to question why a certain number of years of work seems important to us. Years of experience can be helpful as a general gauge, but too often, it ends up disqualifying candidates who have the skills and experience to do a job effectively. For a non-entry level but early-career job, it can be helpful for the person to have had a prior job in a similar environment. Or for a more senior role, you certainly want to know that they’ve been around enough to master some skills. But if you’re tempted to disqualify someone because they’re not meeting an exact number, challenge your assumptions.
Emphasizing formal education and requiring unnecessary college degrees. Have we mentioned that education is kind of a scam? Jokes aside, education has long been a gatekeeper for access to work. Someone whose parents attended college is vastly more likely to attend college and complete a degree program. Given that colleges and universities have historically excluded people of color, women, and groups that face structural oppression, they share a significant responsibility in preserving intergenerational racial and class inequality. We should not give college experience more weight than other life experiences that can prepare someone for the job at hand. In limited cases, such as when hiring for an attorney or a CPA, it might be necessary that someone has a particular degree or certificate. If this isn’t the case, it’s better to avoid requiring college experience from job applicants.
If we can abandon these conventions when it comes to reviewing resumes, it will result in more equitable and accessible workplaces. We encourage employers to evaluate their resume review process to ensure they are not perpetuating inequity. Please contact us to explore how Meso Solutions can support you in implementing equitable hiring processes.
