Problematic language is expensive (Part 2): The mystery of the vanishing high-level candidate
Last month, I wrote about how problematic language can tank sales. Commercial sales, retail sales, products and services with short sales cycles, products and services with long sales cycles. Literally a single ill-chosen word or just a few sentences can bring months of hard work with a prospect to a screeching halt.
And for many sales teams, especially the ones who get ghosted by these prospects, the reason why they didn’t make the sale is invisible.
This is where my “company culture” detective work can come in to play. Interviews, audits, and other data collection help turn what was hidden or invisible into something out in the open and visible.
Because the first step in fixing a problem is accurately delineating that problem.
Angela Lansbury in Murder She Wrote (Photo by Randy Marcus/ NBC Universal)
It is expensive to not use inclusive language.
Most companies have no idea how expensive, or what the hidden costs are.
Just this morning (as I write this), I was on an author panel where another panelist and I talked about how so many companies out there are just hemorrhaging money because of problematic language.
They lose prospective clients due to issues with marketing and sales and maybe even PR. They lose clients they have acquired but then don’t retain because the customer experience team says or writes something problematic. They lose employees who feel disrespected, marginalized, or unwelcome because of the language they encounter from leaders, managers, and team members.
And they also lose out on potential employees during the recruiting process. What's more, recruiting is in and of itself expensive, so avoidable losses can be especially painful.
So, in this second of a three-part series, we’re going to look at recruiting. Because it’s another common “leaky bucket” where the leak is caused by problematic language.
2. The mystery of the vanishing high-level candidate
The VP of Talent Acquisition was upset. “Suzanne, can you put together a customized inclusive language training for our recruiters? And the hiring managers I can convince to come? We’re having problems.”
What had pushed him from irritation into action? A top candidate had emailed to withdraw themselves from consideration. The company had already expended considerable time and money locating this candidate and bringing them into the interview process. It was a specialized job that required a skill set and experience that just not many people had.
“And the recruiter misgendered them,” the VP told me. “During the interview, he apparently said things like, ‘a woman like you,’ and referred to the candidate as ‘she’.”
But the candidate wasn’t female — they were nonbinary. In the email withdrawing their candidacy, they said that they couldn’t see themselves working for a company that was so insensitive. And that they needed to work someplace they felt comfortable, so they’d be able to actually focus on their job.
This VP was lucky — the candidate had taken the time to educate him on what his team had done wrong. Most of the time? The candidates just vanish into thin air.
Photo of Angela Lansbury from Above the Line (Originally from CBS)
My examples database is filled with stories like these. These stories come from “employee experience” interviews that I’ve conducted, as well as from panels, articles, and blog posts.
Misspelled and mispronounced names. Jumping right to nicknames because someone’s name is “too hard.” Calling people “sweetie” or “honey.” Misgendering a candidate. Misgendering a candidate’s partner. Suggesting that someone doesn’t actually have the skills or competencies that they have. Describing a candidate’s neighborhood as “ghetto.” Having a limited definition of “executive presence.” Focusing on family life and childcare only for female candidates. My list goes on and on.
Casual language that recruiters and hiring managers don’t recognize as problematic can be seen as giant red flags to candidates. And signal that a company isn’t thinking about people like them, taking people like them into consideration. Isn’t a place where someone like them can thrive.
So they stop their candidacies, or reject job offers. And there goes a lot of money, and expensive person hours, down the drain. All because of problematic language. Problematic language that drove candidates away, leaving most companies to wonder — why?
As I noted in Part 1 of this series, not only is problematic language expensive, but the costs are usually hidden. So companies don't know where they should invest to fix things.
Organizations that are pouring money into recruiting without investing in an inclusive language upgrade are pouring a good percentage of that money basically through a sieve. They identify and cultivate candidates and then drive a percentage of them away with language that irritates, alienates, or disrespects them. What a waste.
Worthwhile R&C provides organizations of all sizes the latest in inclusive language services.
Copyright 2023 © Worthwhile Research & Consulting