The class gap in the workplace is something I’ve written about a number of times, with people from working-class backgrounds routinely disadvantaged. Often this is to do with a lack of shared background, but research from Stanford highlights how first-generation graduates can also be disadvantaged.
The researchers explain that such individuals often vacillate between viewing their status as evidence of their hard work and determination and viewing it as a sign that they’re not from a middle-class background.
The best approach
To understand the prevailing perspective, the researchers devised a simulated curriculum vitae and accompanying cover letter, wherein the applicant’s first-generation status was either referenced or omitted. Subsequently, these fabricated materials were dispatched in response to 1,783 entry-level job postings.
The outcomes revealed a notable discrepancy in favor of the non-disclosure group. Applications denoting first-generation background suffered a distinct disadvantage, with a 26% reduction in callback rates for interview invitations compared to their counterparts who did not disclose such information.
As any job applicant can attest, the reasons behind the rejection of a meticulously crafted cover letter often remain elusive. The authors proposed a variety of possibilities, however — perhaps hiring managers deemed the mention of first-generation status as inept or akin to soliciting preferential treatment. Yet, a conclusive dismissal of alternative explanations remained elusive.
To dive further into the matter, the researchers looked to understand the mindset of the recruitment gatekeepers by administering a survey to 285 hiring managers. This survey probed their convictions regarding the influence of socioeconomic class background. Respondents were asked to rate their concurrence with statements such as “The capabilities of people can, to a large degree, be traced back to their social origin” on a scale of 1 to 7.
The outcomes of this survey unveiled a prevailing sentiment among the majority of managers surveyed. A notable 62% concurred with the notion that “even when individuals have left their original social environment, their behavior is still strongly determined by their social origin.” Additionally, the average agreement extended to the proposition that “generally, students from lower socioeconomic-status backgrounds are not as well equipped to succeed in business.”
Changing attitudes
The researchers then examined how mindsets could potentially shift. The first part of the study identified a deficit mindset within hiring managers, so they wanted to test various interventions to see if this mindset could change.
They examined this concept in two more studies, involving a substantial sample of 1,250 individuals. These participants were not in managerial roles, but rather ordinary individuals with college education and jobs.
Each participant received an application from the fictional first-generation graduate and was instructed to imagine being in a position where they were responsible for building a team for an important business opportunity. The researchers influenced their perspective, asking them to focus either on potential weaknesses or strengths arising from the experiences of a first-generation student.
In one study, specific traits necessary for navigating college years—like courage, determination, resourcefulness, adaptability, resilience, and problem-solving skills—were suggested. In the other, participants were tasked with independently identifying these strengths.
Surprisingly, both these simple interventions yielded positive results. Among those considering the applicant’s weaknesses, only 26% expressed willingness to consider the first-generation candidate, and they harbored doubts about the applicant’s competence. Among those directed to focus on strengths, 47%—nearly twice as many—expressed their openness to explore job possibilities with the candidate.
