How language affects female applicants

“Men apply when they meet 60%. Women only when they meet 100%.“ We’ve all heard it. We’ve all quoted it. And… It’s wrong. That line comes from an internal HP report from 2014, not a scientific study. It spread because it felt true. But feelings aren’t frameworks. Here’s what research says: The Behavioral Insights Team (2022) and Harvard’s Katherine Coffman (2023) found that women don’t apply less often because they lack confidence. They apply less often because our job ads make them guess. When ads are vague: “proven excellence,” “leadership mindset,” “strong analytical skills” , qualified women are far less likely to apply. Make the expectations concrete, and the gap almost disappears. In Coffman’s experiment, women’s applications jumped by 20 percentage points when the ad listed specific, measurable requirements. Not because women changed. Because the signal did. So if you really want more women in your pipeline, stop fixing women. Start fixing your job descriptions. Here’s where to start this week: 1. Rewrite one key role with clear, measurable, skill-based criteria: describe what someone needs to do, not just who they should be. 2. Separate must-have skills from “nice-to-haves.” Focus on what’s truly future-proof: adaptability, learning mindset, collaboration, and digital literacy. 3. Add a straightforward line: “If you meet most of these skills or have the potential to grow into them, we’d still love to hear from you.” 4. Track your applicant data. Watch who shows up and who finally feels seen.     That’s how inclusion starts, not in slogans, but in structure. And not in personality traits, but in skills. Let’s stop quoting the 60% myth. And start rewriting the rules of how opportunity is communicated. Skill by skill. #SkillsFirst #Recruiting #Diversity #Inclusion #FutureOfWork #Leadership #Hiring #GenderEquality Sources: Behavioural Insights Team (2022). Gender differences in response to requirements in job adverts.London: The Behavioural Insights Team. Coffman, K. B., Collis, M. R., & Kulkarni, L. (2023). Stereotypes and Belief Updating. Management Science, Articles in Advance. Harvard Business School Working Paper. ID! A dark blue graphic with bold white text shows the quote:“Men apply when they meet 60%. Women only when they meet 100%.”The quote is crossed out with a large red “X.”Below, new text reads:“The problem isn’t women’s confidence. It’s how we write the job.”On the lower right, Ute Neher appears smiling, with curly blonde hair, glasses, and a patterned blouse, set against a light background.

I once got feedback that I was “intimidating.” I took it to heart. I spent the next few years trying to be as approachable, warm, and agreeable as I could be. I assumed this was a character flaw that I needed to fix. But years later, I realized something: this feedback wasn’t about me. It was about the system - one that judges women more harshly and polices their personalities more than their performance. And the numbers back this up. 👇🏽 🎯 Women are 7x more likely to receive negative personality-based feedback than men. 🎯 56% of women have been called "unlikeable" in reviews (vs. 16% of men). 🎯 Harvard Business Review found that 76% of “aggressive” labels in one company’s reviews were given to women (vs. 24% to men). This Is the Leadership Double Bind: Speak up? You’re “too aggressive.” Stay quiet? You “lack confidence.” Show ambition? You’re “unlikeable.” Ask for a promotion? You’re “too pushy.” And here’s the kicker - it’s worst for high-performing women. This is why women... ↳  Hesitate to showcase ambition. ↳  Are reluctant to ask for opportunities. ↳  Are leaving workplaces faster than others. So, what can we do? Here are 3 ways we can start changing this narrative today: ✅ Check your language. Is the feedback about personality or performance? If you wouldn’t give the same critique to a man, please reconsider. ✅ Challenge vague feedback. “You need to be more confident” isn’t actionable. Women deserve the same clear, growth-oriented feedback as men. ✅ Support women’s ambition. If certain leadership traits (ex. being assertive) are seen as strengths in men, they should be seen as strengths in women too. Have you ever received unfair feedback? What’s one piece of feedback you’ve had to unlearn? 👇🏽 ♻️ Please share to help end unfair feedback. 🔔 Follow Bhavna Toor (She/Her) for more insights on conscious leadership. Source: Textio 'Language Bias in Feedback' Study, 2023 & 2024 #EndUnFairFeedback #IWD2025

Please stop telling your recruitment partners that "it'd be great if you could find a woman for the team". ❌ Instead, start doing the following... ✅ Evaluate your sales culture. If it's feels like a "boys club", it is. Fix it. ✅ Analyse the language you are using. Gendered wording of job advertisements signals who belongs and who does not. "Masculine- worded ads reduced perceived belongingness [among women], which in turn lead to less job appeal, regardless of one’s perception of their personal skill to perform that job." - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, January 2011 - (🔗 Link in comments.) ✅ Provide workplace flexibility A 2023 study conducted by the University of Oxford’s Well-being Research Centre found that when it comes to fostering a positive working environment, reducing stress, and boosting employee resilience, flexibility is one of the most effective elements required to create a healthy work-life balance. The findings correlate with a separate study which found that post-pandemic, 72% of women are prioritising purpose and balance at work, and are looking for the flexibility that facilitates this. (🔗 Link in comments.) ✅ Build an infrastructure and culture of coaching and support. The opportunity to be coached by other women (both internal and external) goes a long way in not only developing existing staff members, but also in attracting new talent. (Bonus point: ensure your interview processes are as gender diverse as possible. You can't be what you can't see.) ✅ Implement gender-neutral and diversity-inclusive policies. Offer gender-neutral parental leave policies to prevent issues like absence visibility, project loss, and early return pressure. In my experience, the Nordics lead the way in gender-equitable parental leave policies, for example. ✅ Address any existing gender pay gaps. It's 2024... This shouldn't even have to be a point. I'm a recruitment & search professional. I'm not a DE&I specialist. But I really hope one day the conversation changes from "it'd be great if you could find us a woman" to "we have awesome diversity in our team because...". Women in sales & those of you in gender diverse businesses - what else would you add? LP ✌️ Pack GTM | SaaS Sales Recruitment in Germany #sales #hiring #careers #startups #recruitment 

“This girl is amazing.” Harmless? Maybe. Harmless to whom, though? When women push back on being called “girls” in professional contexts, we’re not nitpicking. We’re naming a pattern. A pattern that minimises. That infantilises. That reminds us - subtly but constantly - that we’re expected to stay small, pleasant, and palatable. Yes, some women aren’t offended. Yes, some even laugh it off. But that doesn’t make it fine. It just makes it familiar. And when women defend it? That’s internalised misogyny doing exactly what it was designed to do - keep the waters murky and the bar low. Then come the comments… “It’s tricky to know what to say these days.” Is it, though? Because “don’t be an a-hole” feels pretty straightforward. It’s not tricky. What is tricky? Being the least safe in your own home (like women, statistically, are). Navigating a world that constantly reduces your authority, your autonomy, your worth - often through something as “harmless” as a word. To the original author: I don’t think you’re a bad person. I think this is a brilliant example of how everyday language carries invisible weight - and how our reactions to feedback tell a bigger story. This post? It’s a case study in how patriarchy hides in plain sight. Let’s normalise wrestling with this stuff. Let’s stop normalising brushing it off. Let’s not normalise ignoring it. Because the load of navigating this? It’s not heavier than the centuries-long load of being minimised. ✨ Decency over defensiveness. #WomenInBusiness #LanguageMatters

"Hello, girls." It’s not something I expect a senior male leader to say to his team. Ever. And yet, it’s something I still find myself having to call in with the men I work with—whether as a coach or through our long-term leadership and male allyship programmes. In fact, I did just that earlier this week, when a participant referred to his female colleagues as “girls”. To his credit, he took the feedback as it was intended: an invitation to make his language more inclusive. But more often than not, the reaction is defensive: - “But my wife always says she’s going out with the girls.” - “No one’s ever complained.” - “I wouldn’t mind being called one of the boys.” Here’s the thing: in a world where the gender pay gap persists, and many women face ongoing barriers in male-dominated cultures, language matters. Deeply. Here are just three reasons why calling women “girls” is problematic: 1. It infantilises women and undermines their professional status. Referring to adult women as “girls” suggests immaturity and can diminish their perceived authority. 2. It reinforces gendered power dynamics. While “the boys in finance” may be said jokingly, it doesn’t carry the same diminutive tone. “Girls” reflects and reinforces outdated stereotypes. 3. It contributes to casual sexism. Normalising diminutive language creates a culture where sexist assumptions are brushed off as “banter”. Deloitte’s Women @ Work report (2023) highlights how these seemingly minor slights lead to disengagement and higher attrition among women. Now imagine I ended this post with: “Girls of LinkedIn—what do you think?” It wouldn’t sit right. Nor should it in the workplace. So next time you hear a male colleague refer to women as “girls”, have a quiet word. Ask how he thinks it might feel to be called a girl in a professional context. Often, asking the right questions helps men work it out for themselves. What other everyday language do you think gets in the way of building a truly inclusive workplace? ♻️ Repost if you agree and follow me (Daniele Fiandaca) for insights on inclusive leadership, healthy masculinity, and male allyship. #InclusiveLeadership #MaleAllyship #LanguageMatters #EverydaySexism #MicroActionsMajorShifts

Hiring managers, recruiters, and HR leaders—it's time to check our language and biases. 👇🏿 The phrase "DEI hire" has become an easily weaponized term, often used to undermine the qualifications and experiences of underrepresented professionals. This isn’t just a harmless label; it’s a reflection of deeper biases that can dehumanize individuals and reduce them to mere tokens. Phrases like "Purple Unicorn" to describe a candidate who identifies as part of multiple underrepresented groups are not only disrespectful but also dismissive of their actual skills and accomplishments. Seriously though—ask yourself, why do we insist on calling out a "female engineer" instead of just "engineer"? Or a "female CEO" instead of simply "CEO"? The more we reify systems that tokenize identity as a defining trait for a role, the more we imply that certain positions belong to specific groups. This not only limits perceptions but also harms the inclusive environment we’re striving to create. It’s time to rethink how we communicate our hiring practices. The words we choose matter, and they can either perpetuate harmful stereotypes or foster a truly inclusive workplace. We can all do better. Let’s stop being part of the problem and start leading the change we want to see. It begins with each of us, right here, right now. #DEI #Hiring #Recruitment

Important new study by professor Katherine Coffman and colleagues finds that in "male-typed domains, qualified women are significantly less likely to apply than similarly well-qualified men." Importantly, this was more likely to occur when the job ad contained vague guidance about the qualifications. When clear guidance was provided about the required qualifications, women were much more likely to apply for the expert job. The takeaway is that to encourage more qualified applicants to apply companies should: ✅ Avoid vague descriptions of qualifications. ✅ Be as clear as possible about the experience and skills required such as stating the specific number of years of experience or specific types of skills needed for the role.

Women consistently outperform men in leadership Yet they are more likely to get negative feedback* The language we use shapes our reality: Men are "direct" → women are "rude" Men are "passionate" → women are "emotional" Men are "leaders" → women are "bossy" These aren't just words They matter They tear down confidence before it has a chance to grow Companies with female leaders: ↳ Are 25% more likely to outperform financially ↳ Have higher employee engagement scores ↳ Report higher levels of innovation Yet despite these impressive metrics, women: ↳ Make up only 25% of C-suite leaders ↳ Receive 37% more criticism in performance reviews ↳ Are 1.4x more likely to have their judgment questioned Real Change Starts With Recognition Next time you hear these labels, pause and ask: "Would I use the same word if the gender was different?" "What behavior am I actually observing?" "Am I applying an unconscious filter?" Share your experiences in the comments 👇 How have you seen these dynamics play out? ♻️ Share to help end these biases in 2025 🔔 Follow Anna Findlay 🔑 Career Coach for more on career growth & women's careers 👇 Subscribe to my FREE 6-day email course for career growth, confidence & job search strategies https://lnkd.in/gBxCz_zW 

Research indicates that women only apply for jobs that they think they met all the job requirements and men when they meet 80%. His advice to the women in the audience 👉Apply even if they only meet 80% of the job requirements. I wasnt going to let that comment pass 🙄 My question to him and hiring managers, if we know this research, if we know the barriers 💙what would we and our organization do to change the way we advertise for the jobs to remove this barrier? Would we 🥏Redesign the job description between must have and nice to have 🥏Change the language to include transferable and learnable skills versus experienced skill 🥏Include invitations to apply even if don’t meet all the job requirements 🥏Encourage hiring managers to focus on core competencies rather than rigid criteria. 🥏Avoid overly specific terms that might discourage potential applicants. 🥏Use gender-neutral language to ensure that job descriptions appeal to a diverse audience. 🥏Train hiring managers and recruiters on unconscious bias and the impact of rigid requirements. Help them recognize the value of diverse perspectives. Because The responsibility of inclusion lies with those who have the power to change the system. Agree?

Language matters. The language we use with girls and women around their achievements matters. It matters because people with access to constructive feedback progress faster in their careers, earn more, and have more leadership opportunities. My mother handed over my school reports to me recently. Interest soon turned to irritation. Through the years, teachers described my excellent results as "pleasing". "Good girl" language has an undertone of approval seeking rather than achievement. It rewards compliance, effort, and being pleasing rather than recognising intelligence, ambition, or leadership. It’s a quiet kind of conditioning, shaping expectations for what success should look like for females: nice, respectable, and never too disruptive. Too much of that language still lingers today in the way we assess women in work. Have we just upgraded pleasing to collaborative? Conscientious to a safe pair of hands? What if school reports were written differently to say a girl is impressive, that she should be ambitious and proud of her achievements? Modern, workplace-friendly language tells women they are "collaborative," "supportive," and "team players", all words that sound positive but often mean not too pushy, not too demanding, and not too threatening. Meanwhile, men get strategic, decisive, and bold. Their results aren’t pleasing, they’re impressive. Research supports this, according to a Textio study of 23,000 performance reviews: 88% of high-performing women received feedback about their personality, compared with just 12% of men. This isn't a men's problem, the research showed that both men and women are showing the same bias towards women. If language shapes reality, what kind of future are we building when we call women's personalities ‘pleasing’ and men's achievements ‘impressive’? This is the language that is training AI. #women #dei #womenleaders #language Enjoy this? ♻️ Repost it to your network and follow me Holly Joint I write about navigating a tech-driven future: how it impacts strategy, leadership, culture and women. All views are my own.