How Bias in Hiring Holds Everyone Back - and How We Can Fix It

A young woman sits at her computer after submitting her resume.

When a student submits a resume, they're hoping to be judged on their skills, their drive, and their potential. But research consistently shows that the process isn't nearly that fair. Small details like a name, graduation year, zip code, or even a phone number prefix can spark unconscious bias that changes the outcome long before a candidate sits down for an interview. This sort of hiring bias not only impacts the talent pipeline, but it has a dramatic long-term impact on jobseekers' livelihoods.

The Subtle Signals That Skew Opportunity

Studies show that women and underrepresented groups face systemic disadvantages from the moment their resumes hit a recruiter's inbox. Identical resumes sent out with different names produce different outcomes: John is more likely to get a callback than Jennifer, even when their qualifications are the same. Women of color experience an even sharper drop-off, with callback rates lower than both men and white women.

Other signals, like a gap in employment, can be unfairly attributed to caregiving responsibilities if the candidate is a woman. A zip code associated with a low-income neighborhood or a phone number prefix from a rural area can trigger assumptions about background or ability. Even the language of job postings, words like aggressive or dominant can deter women from applying.

These biases are not just individual incidents: they create structural disadvantages. Research calls this the Broken Rung: for every 100 men promoted to a management position, only about 81-87 women make the leap. That small, early gap cascades through a career, shaping promotions, pay, and opportunities.

The Costs: Seen and Unseen

For jobseekers, these disadvantages add up to staggering lifetime costs. A woman offered just $3,000 less than a male peer in her first job can end up half a million dollars behind over the course of her career. Women of color often lose over $1 million in lifetime earnings. Beyond the paycheck, missing out on early promotions means less access to high-visibility projects, smaller networks, and fewer chances to build the 'experience capital' that leadership roles demand.

For employers, hiring bias creates invisible costs as well. By filtering candidates based on superficial signals, companies shrink their talent pools and miss out on skilled, motivated workers. Worse, biased systems undermine employer branding. Jobseekers notice when processes feel unfair: 42% of women report experiencing biased or inappropriate questions during interviews. The reputational damage makes it harder to attract diverse talent in the long run.

And when bias gets baked into AI screening systems, as seen in Amazon's now-scrapped recruiting tool that penalized resumes with the word "women's," these costs scale at speed.

A Different Way Forward

At enterN, we're building a bias-resistant platform that shifts the focus away from where someone has been and onto where they want to go. Instead of resumes, jobseekers create anonymized profiles built around their values, preferences, and goals - the things that actually drive long-term fit. Employers, in turn, see candidates as people with potential, not just names on paper.

This approach is especially important in the early talent space. Most students haven't yet had the chance to accumulate "impressive" work experience, and relying on resumes only amplifies structural inequities. By removing biased signals and centering alignment, we're helping employers discover great talent they might otherwise overlook - and helping students find opportunities where they can thrive.

Because Hiring Bias Shouldn't Impact Livelihoods

Because hiring shouldn't be about decoding a zip code or judging a name... It should be about building futures - faster, fairer, and without all the friction that's holding everyone back.