Who vs That: A Practical Grammar Guide

Reviewed by the Grammarlyzer Editorial Team · Our Review Standards · Published January 22, 2026 · Updated June 13, 2026

Choose the Right Relative Pronoun Quickly

📌 Quick Answer
Who is preferred for people. That is used for things and can be used for people in defining clauses in informal style.

Memory Trick: If the noun is clearly a person, default to who in formal writing.

💡 Key Difference

Professional and academic writing usually prefers who for humans.

Quick Comparison

Form Use It For Quick Check
Who People (and named animals) If the noun is a person, "who" is always safe and usually preferred.
That Things, ideas, organizations — and informally, people in defining clauses If the noun is a thing, use "that"; never use "who" for an object.

The Quick Rule — and the One Real Gray Area

The hard rules are easy: who for people, that/which for things. "Who" for an object ("the book who won") is always wrong. The only genuine debate is whether you may use "that" for people — and the answer is "yes, but."

The noun is… Use Note
A specific person ("the nurse ___ helped me") who Always correct; preferred in edited writing.
A person, informal/defining ("anyone ___ wants to") that (acceptable) Grammatical, but "who" sounds more polished.
A thing, idea, or company that / which "Who" is wrong here.
A group of people as a unit (a team, a band) that (often) "The team that won" — the unit, not the individuals.

Common Mistakes

❌ Incorrect:

The book who won the prize is sold out.

✓ Correct:

The book that won the prize is sold out.

A book is a thing, so "who" is simply wrong. This direction of the error is never acceptable — use "that" or "which."
❌ Incorrect:

The teacher that inspired me retired.

✓ Correct:

The teacher who inspired me retired.

Not strictly wrong, but in polished writing "who" is expected for a named person. Most editors will change "that" to "who" here.
❌ Incorrect:

Our company, who was founded in 2010, is hiring.

✓ Correct:

Our company, which was founded in 2010, is hiring.

A company is an organization, not a person, so use "which" (non-defining) or "that" (defining) — never "who."
❌ Incorrect:

She's the kind of leader which listens.

✓ Correct:

She's the kind of leader who listens.

"Which" is for things only and can never refer to a person. For a leader (a person), use "who."

Three Cases Worth Remembering

Teams and companies: "that," not "who"

Collective nouns naming an organization take "that" or "which": "the band that headlined," "a firm that delivers." Even though people make up the group, the grammar treats it as a single entity. Use "who" only when you name the members directly.

Animals: "that" usually, "who" if named

"A dog that barks" is standard, but a pet with a name often takes "who": "Bella, who loves walks." The more personal the animal, the more natural "who" becomes.

"That" can drop; "who" usually can't

In defining object clauses, "that" can vanish: "the report (that) I sent." "Who/whom" is harder to drop naturally, so this is one practical reason "that" is handy in fast, informal writing about people.

🎯 Test Your Knowledge

1. The engineer ___ fixed the issue stayed late.

2. The tool ___ checks spelling is free.

3. The candidate ___ we hired starts Monday.

4. The startup ___ raised the round is hiring.

5. Anyone ___ has questions can email us.

See It Live: Check a Sentence With Our Engine

Want proof the who vs that rule holds up? The box below runs Grammarlyzer's engine on your text in real time. The starter sentence (“The teacher that inspired me retired.”) already contains a slip—edit it or paste your own to watch the engine react.

The correct version is: "The teacher who inspired me retired.".

Honest limits: the engine reliably catches spelling, agreement, and punctuation, but choosing between Who and That depends on meaning. The checker is a fast second pass—the decision stays with you.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is "that" wrong for people?

Not always. It appears in defining clauses, but many style guides still prefer "who."

What should I use in business writing?

Use "who" for people and "that" (or "which") for things and organizations. It reads as polished and avoids the jarring "the client that complained" that some readers flag.

Do I use "who" or "that" for a company or team?

Use "that" or "which" — an organization is treated as an entity, not a person: "the agency that won the pitch." Switch to "who" only when you refer to the individual people: "the designers who pitched."

Can "which" ever refer to a person?

No. "Which" is for things only. For people, choose "who" (preferred) or, informally, "that." "The manager which hired me" is always incorrect.

Deep Dive

Who fits people and expected human reference in non-restrictive and many restrictive clauses.

That often handles objects, concepts, and organizations; strict style often prefers who for people in edited prose.

Practical Use Cases

This choice affects tone as much as grammar. Readers usually expect "who" for people in polished prose.

Context How to Choose
People Use "who" for a person: "The analyst who prepared the report is available."
Things and tools Use "that" for objects, tools, companies as entities, or abstract ideas.
Informal restrictive clauses "That" can refer to people in casual speech, but "who" is safer in edited writing.

Why This Mistake Happens

The word "that" is flexible, so many sentences with people are understandable. The issue is reader expectation: "who" treats the person as human immediately.

Mini Checklist

  • If the noun is a person, choose "who" in formal writing.
  • If the noun is a thing, tool, or idea, choose "that" or "which."
  • If the clause is extra, review comma rules and relative clauses too.

How Grammarlyzer Can Help

Grammarlyzer can point out relative-pronoun patterns, but the final choice depends on formality and whether the noun is human, abstract, or organizational.

You can compare this rule with Pronoun Cases Guide and Relative Clauses.

Related Articles

Who vs That in Business, Academic, and Everyday Writing

In professional and business writing, the who/that distinction affects both accuracy and the human quality of your prose. When you write "employees who meet the criteria" rather than "employees that meet the criteria," you are signaling that the employees are people deserving of human-specific pronoun reference. Human resources documents, performance reviews, client communications, and job postings benefit from using "who" for people — it subtly reinforces that the text treats individuals as persons rather than as units or variables. "The team that completed the project" is acceptable, but "the team who completed the project" sometimes fits when the team is being recognized as a group of human beings. Most corporate style guides resolve this by specifying "who" for individuals and "that" for groups and organizations used as entities.

In academic and scholarly writing, the distinction is upheld in most style guides (APA, Chicago, MLA), and peer reviewers at journals in the humanities and social sciences look for it. A psychology paper should write "participants who reported symptoms" rather than "participants that reported symptoms," because participants are people. A study in organizational behavior might write "companies that implemented the policy" because companies are organizational entities rather than individual people. However, groups that are primarily defined by their human membership — "a community who shares these values" — may take "who" in more humanistic disciplines. The safest default for any academic document is: individual named or implied person → "who"; organization, system, or thing → "that."

In everyday writing, "that" referring to people is so common that many readers do not notice the distinction at all. News headlines, casual blogs, and informal emails routinely write "the person that helped me" without any outcry, and descriptive linguists generally accept that "that" can refer to people in restrictive clauses. The issue is not that "that" for people is incomprehensible — it is perfectly understood — but that it can make writing feel slightly impersonal or reductive. Writers who want to convey respect, warmth, or humanistic attention to their subjects instinctively reach for "who" with people. This is partly a stylistic preference, but in formal writing it also serves as a grammatical signal of precision.

The Human Reference Test

Ask: is the noun in question a person (or group of persons being treated individually)? If yes, "who" is the preferred formal choice. Is the noun a thing, concept, organization as an entity, or animal without named personhood? Use "that" (or "which" in non-restrictive clauses). When unsure — as with collective nouns like "staff," "team," or "committee" — consider whether you are thinking of the individuals or the entity. Individuals → "who"; the entity → "that."

Questions About Checking Who vs That

Is it ever grammatically wrong to use "that" for people?

Strictly speaking, most traditional grammar authorities say that "that" can refer to people in restrictive (defining) relative clauses: "The person that called is waiting." This has been part of English grammar for centuries — the King James Bible uses "that" to refer to people in numerous passages. However, many modern style guides (especially for formal writing) express a preference for "who" with people, even in restrictive clauses. So the answer is: it is rarely wrong in an absolute sense, but it is often discouraged in formal prose where "who" is available and more precise. Using "who" is never wrong for people; using "that" for people is wrong only in some style guides, never universally.

What about animals — should I use "who" or "that" for pets?

Named pets and animals with individual personalities are often referred to with "who" in informal writing, reflecting the personal relationship between owner and animal: "My dog Max, who loves to swim, spent the afternoon at the lake." In formal writing and general contexts, "that" or "which" is used for animals: "The dog that was found at the shelter." The informal "who" for named pets is an acceptable extension of human pronoun reference to humanized animals, but it is best reserved for named individuals rather than generic animal references. In scientific and academic writing, animals are always referred to with "that" or "which."

How does who vs that interact with restrictive vs non-restrictive clauses?

Restrictive clauses (no commas) define which specific person or thing is meant: "The employee who submitted the report is available." Non-restrictive clauses (with commas) add extra information about a noun already identified: "The employee, who submitted the report last week, is available." For people, "who" works in both restrictive and non-restrictive positions. "That" can only appear in restrictive clauses — you cannot write "The employee, that submitted the report, is available" with commas, because "that" does not introduce non-restrictive clauses. Understanding this restriction helps explain why "who" is often the safer choice when you are unsure whether your clause is restrictive or non-restrictive.

Should I use "who" or "that" for organizations and companies?

Organizations and companies are legal entities, not people, so "that" is technically correct: "The company that won the contract will begin work in July." However, when an organization is being personified or when its human character is being emphasized, some writers use "who": "The firm who manages our account has twenty years of experience." In practice, most style guides recommend "that" for organizations and companies, and the AP Stylebook explicitly instructs writers to use "that" for corporations and institutions. If the sentence is about the organization as an entity — its actions, decisions, products — use "that." Reserve "who" for the individual human members of an organization when they are the subject.

Check Your Writing Now

Use our free checker to review common grammar and spelling issues, then confirm each suggestion in context.

Try Grammar Checker Free →