She Used AI. So Did He. Guess Who Got Judged for It?
AI is everywhere. But apparently, we’re not judging everyone equally for using it.
AI has quickly become part of our everyday working lives, helping us brainstorm, research, write, and work more efficiently. It’s made its way into the job search too, and increasingly, knowing how to use it is seen as a skill.
But a new study from Code For Good Now caught our attention at Monday Talent because it found that the same use of AI can be perceived very differently depending on who’s using it.
Researchers showed 1,000 UK adults the same AI-supported resume for a marketing candidate. The only difference? Half saw Emily Clarke at the top, while the other half saw James Clarke.
Despite identical resumes, respondents were twice as likely to question Emily’s competence and 22% more likely to question her trustworthiness. James was twice as likely to be seen as showing initiative.
For an industry increasingly telling candidates and employees to embrace AI, that’s something worth talking about.
A Recruiter’s POV
At Monday Talent, we spend a lot of time talking about resumes.
We know how quickly people form an opinion about a candidate. We also know that AI has made its way into almost every part of the job search, whether that’s cleaning up a resume, drafting a cover letter, researching a company, or prepping for an interview.
And for the most part, employers are encouraging it.
So it’s pretty wild that using the technology we’re all being told to embrace could make one candidate look resourceful and another look less capable.
The comments from the study make the difference even clearer.
When looking at Emily’s resume, one respondent questioned whether she had the skills for the job if she couldn’t even write the resume herself.
James got a much more forgiving interpretation: he “just needed a bit of help putting it together.”
If you’ve ever wondered why some women might be more hesitant to announce that they used AI, well...there’s your answer.
Take the Resume Out of It
This is where we think the research gets even more interesting.
A resume is one moment in someone’s career. What happens when these perceptions follow people into the workplace?
Two employees use AI to help brainstorm a campaign. Is one innovative while the other needs help?
Two people use it to pull together research before a client meeting. Is one efficient while the other looks less knowledgeable?
Those little differences in perception can add up, especially in industries like PR, marketing, and creative where so much of someone’s value is tied to their ideas, writing, judgment, and strategic thinking.
And that’s why we don’t think the conversation can stop at “women need to use AI more.”
Research cited in the report has already found that women adopt AI at lower rates than men, even when their skills are equivalent. Fear of judgment is one of the barriers identified.
Now we have evidence suggesting that fear might be pretty well-founded.
The Takeaway
If AI is going to be part of how we work, companies need to make the rules around it less murky.
What’s encouraged? What crosses the line? How should AI-assisted work be evaluated? And are those standards actually being applied consistently?
The same goes for hiring.
We’re already seeing candidates try to figure out how much AI use they should disclose, while employers are trying to decide what counts as smart use versus over-reliance. There probably isn’t going to be one universal answer.
But there should be a consistent one within your organization.
Because asking candidates and employees to embrace AI while leaving them to guess how they’ll be judged for using it is a pretty confusing place to land.
And if Emily and James can submit the same work and walk away leaving two different impressions, we have more than an AI adoption gap to figure out.
We have a judgment gap.
Mouth Off With Monday is just the start of the conversation. For more insights, talent trends, and behind-the-scenes of the industries we work in, connect with us!
LinkedIn | Instagram | Substack
FAQ’S
-
The Code For Good Now study suggests there can be. When 1,000 UK adults evaluated an identical AI-supported resume, the female candidate was twice as likely to have her competence questioned and 22% more likely to have her trustworthiness questioned. The male candidate was twice as likely to be viewed as showing initiative.
-
There isn’t one universal rule. AI can be useful for organizing, editing and refining a resume, but candidates should still be able to stand behind everything they submit. For employers, the bigger question is whether disclosed AI use is being evaluated consistently across candidates.
-
Employers can set clearer expectations around acceptable AI use and apply the same standards to every candidate. The study also recommends reviewing how AI-assisted work is evaluated and establishing clear organizational norms so individual assumptions don’t determine whether AI use is viewed positively or negatively.
