Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)
hbr.org
hbr.org
There was a point in college that I didn't apply for a scholarship because I didn't have the 3.0 GPA requirement at the time, I had like a 2.95
About 7 months later I found out that a student with a 2.2 GPA had received the scholarship because so few people had applied, they were able to give them to everyone who applied, regardless of qualifications. That was the moment I realized that not everything is written in stone and even if you don't stand a chance, you still should make an attempt at pursuing things.
Indirectly, since then I have encouraged all my friends, both men and women to apply for jobs or things that they are interested in, regardless of qualifications. Sometimes interest/passion alone can help get you a job, or perhaps they will create a more junior position just for you; it is not unheard of to do such a thing.
Since I learned the lesson, there has probably been at least 7 different times in my life, that a rule/qualification was bent or changed that benefited me, because I simply tried for it.
If you are "the wrong kind of person," the rules are much less likely to bend for you. If you are the wrong skin color, wrong gender, wrong religion, whatever, going for it can get the rules thrown in your face while everyone accuses you of being an asshole who is trying to break the rules while, at the exact same time, they make exceptions for "the right kind of people."
So, maybe consider that is what a lot of women are complaining about when they decry male privilege.
I don't doubt discrimination exists, and if this has been your personal experience, I'm sorry.
It just seems foreign to me that someone would actually do this for a private role.
If you don't match the skill set the algorithm will filter you out before anyone even knows you exist. If you get by it clearly the reviewer saw something they liked anyway.
What recruiter is going to berate someone and call them an asshole for applying to a job they aren't qualified for? And if that was the case, I'd view it as a dodged bullet.
I have made other pertinent remarks in this same discussion that support the idea that what keeps women out is not straight up sexism in terms of "No girls allowed in the boys club." But that doesn't change the fact that women do, at times, get excluded due to their gender and it is maddening when people try to act like that simply isn't a thing at all.
The rules do get applied differently for different people. This is not just losers making excuses.
A candidate's ability should be judged strictly on what are their abilities today and what is their perceived ceiling. While you can argue that years of experience correlates to those details, it certainly does not inform them.
Anecdotally, my most recent developer job post had an exactly 50:50 male to female applicant ratio. Without exception the women applying were juniors. If this article is to be believed, my putting even "1+ years of experience" might have arbitrarily rejected some number of otherwise qualified candidates.
What held them back from applying was not a mistaken perception about themselves, but a mistaken perception about the hiring process.
This is critical, because it suggests that if the HP finding speaks to a larger trend, women don’t need to try and find that elusive quality, “confidence,” they just need better information about how hiring processes really work.
This fits exactly with my experience in terms of being female seems to have somehow denied me certain kinds of information, skills and experience that are critical to getting things done. If I can somehow access that info, then I start getting stuff done more on par with the guys.
It has nothing to do with suggesting women lack confidence or are filled with anxiety. In fact, the article is basically rebutting that idea.
(This from someone who has painfully learned not to take any rule or process literally in the real world. There's a reason I like computers.)
But I have found it helpful to focus on finding a way to get access to the information I need rather than just bellyaching about "sexism."
Thank you for commenting.
In reality the "in" crowd can't just do that, pat itself on the back for being so "inclusive" this week, and continue with business as usual. Overcoming unconscious cultural biases to actually bring people into the "success network" requires a lot more commitment than that.
The good news is, some people are really trying. But there are still plenty of people who are too lazy, don't understand the problem, or don't care.
Now whether or not that advice gets properly dispensed is another issue.
I would also point out that many good programmers don't like uncertainity (notably those with asperger), it is one of few jobs where it is a good thing. Not implying they are all rock stars, just that un certainty here is red herring.
Personally, I see any employer advertising for a position with stricter requirements than what they'll hire as advertising their own dishonesty. It just makes them look bad.
The fact that candidates that pre-select themselves out of being chosen is not really a big concern. Why should it be? The way around this is knowing exactly who it is you want for the job, but in that case I wouldn't be posting the job in a public forum. It's kind of what recruiters are intended for.
Could it be argued that not enough care is being taken by the team to solicit the thoughts of the less shouty members? If an organisation didn't want to hire or deal with said folk, perhaps it's a good thing for those looked over?
Research seems to suggest that a more diverse workforce (of all varieties) leads to more successful businesses. And my own personal experience leads me to believe that skilled folk come in some weird and wonderful packages. I know which path I would choose.
Potentially strong employees don't want to get where they are by lying or stretching the truth.
Ah, I had not. Landing a job I don't know how to do 2/5ths of sounds awful.
Job advertisement: Immediate requirement for an illusionist/escapist. Must have 15 years experience in inverted underwater lockpicking. Nice to have some experience in juggling chainsaws.
Job reality: You do coin and card tricks at children's birthday parties.
Even if the job does require something you don't know, it is very likely that--no matter what it is--you could spend a few hours on the Internet learning how to fake it well enough to fool anyone short of an actual expert until you get the real on-the-job experience.
Then don't be an engineer?
Seriously, an engineer's job is to invent new things that no one has done before, and tell other people how to reliably build more of them. If you start a project with a 100% clear vision of how to get to the end, then you are already behind your competition.
Not knowing how to do 40%, and not being intimidated by 95%, seems like about the right mix.
The next position that I'm waiting for a written job offer for: I don't know the language, haven't ever developed on the OS, and I'll be looking at 15 years of legacy code. It sounds like an exciting opportunity to expand my knowledge on someone else's time and do something I haven't done before.
Granted, I never would've applied on my own; they contacted me through LinkedIn. But that kind of thing is how I expect I'll find all my work in the foreseeable future.
I frequently don't apply for jobs I see that I could probably do, for all of the reasons listed in the article. A couple of times I have even pulled out after a successful first round interview due to anxiety about continuing.
This is an example of how the "women in tech" movement alienates men who would otherwise be potential allies.
Instead of focussing on women, why not leave gender out of it and focus on "low-confidence candidates" (or whatever you want to call this cohort of people). That way if it's true that women are more likely to be "low-confidence" then you'll end up helping more women anyway, but you'll do it without alienating men.
Ignoring the root cause and jumping straight to helping women is exactly what what makes feminists look like man-haters.
I'm sick of the stereotype that because I'm an oh-so-privileged white male I must have had a ridiculously easy life and be full of confidence.
I think calls for greater clarity and attention to detail when doing data analysis are well-considered and we should be _deeply suspect_ of claims made based on statistical aggregates, and particularly the mean average which is one of the most distorting and lossy aggregates there is.
In the GP, I don't think he's making a "well-considered" call for "greater clarity." He's using the fact that because he lacks self-confidence, that focusing on women as a group is bullshit, as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men.
[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/katie-ledecky-is-the-pr...
This is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm more than fine with women being helped. What I'm saying is, don't do it in a way that excludes men with the same problem.
The article's author decided to challenge that belief with a systematic analysis and she reports that it is not confidence that is the main factor. Yet you choose to interpret the problem as self-confidence because you, yourself, feel a lack of confidence. Furthermore, you accuse the author of excluding men, because you choose to see her efforts as a zero-sum game.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Lots of men have a shitty time in the workforce, in life, or whatever, and individually they probably don't do as well as a given woman. But that's not the point.
None of these broad trends mean anything when you look at an individual. The individual is a molecule in a gas.
(And I can't quite figure out why someone would read a piece on trends and immediately go to "but what about MEEE?" ... the whole thing is based on large-scale data, not the individual, so what about you? Nothing about you. This isn't about you.)
http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/04/the-plural-of-an...
https://web.archive.org/web/20080523225000/http://listserv.l...
Both variations are insightful; I like using Wolfinger's because it is an accurate observation that all data start out as anecdotes, and are influenced/distorted by the collection and filtering process. Still, this also implies that one outlying anecdote is not enough evidence alone to dismiss the aggregate findings across all of the other anecdotes.
Been waiting for that privilege to kick in yet... however, after reading all those articles about women in tech and realizing that a) I tend to not negotiate and avoid conflict b) terrified (for my family's wellfare) of confronting my boss when I feel I'm being unjustly compensated\treated, c) shitting my pants when the next round of layoffs is leaked and d) being an introvert makes me not speak up as much in meetings to 'establish dominance', maybe I'm a woman after all?
Trying to help one group doesn't mean you're trying to hurt another group. Focusing on women doesn't make someone anti-men. That's what groups like "all lives matter" fail to understand, and what you don't seem to get here.
If we have collectively decided that helping people with low self-confidence is a good thing, why not leave it at that?
If more women than men get helped in the process, then I'm fine with that.
Helping in the form of advice to the job seekers: as Mike said, the advice applies equally to the men in the same situation.
Helping in the form of making employers aware, so they can optimize their job descriptions: It incidentally helps men of low self-confidence too. Notice, tough, that being socialized into assuming a requirement is hard instead of "not really" isn't the same as not being confident. And that some commenters here are defending that a candidate that lacks the confidence to even apply for a job isn't worth their time considering.
As for why they do it, it's because women have historically been oppressed, and a lot of people now try to pretend like it's all over and done with when it clearly is not.
Does it even matter why? They do. It's there. You can be thankful for what they're doing to draw attention to problems you face, or you can be upset that they haven't explicitly included you in the group they focus on. I don't see why you'd pick the latter.
You don't have that factor, through your condition sounds pretty bad.
there isn't a single, unified thing that is "a feminist". however, some factions that call themselves feminists are legitimately man-haters.
> According to the self-report of the respondents, the barrier to applying was not lack of confidence. In fact, for both men and women, “I didn’t think I could do the job well” was the least common of all the responses.
Confidence means not being afraid of bluffing your way through an interview when you only have 60% of the required skills, for example. Note that more men than women didn't apply to jobs for this reason.
If there are problems that can be fixed, fix them. If you have concerns that we are leaving more feminine men in the back ranks, address those. But to turn the discussion into chastising people is to hurt the debate.
And I am fully sympathetic to your point. I feel that way for a lot of things. I have come to realize that at best you are falling victim to "perfect being enemy of the good" and at worst you are allowing yourself to be a weapon that the those actually abusing power use against those they are abusing their power against.
I think that this matter if your goal is equality. People being afraid to show side of them that is not stereotypical matters.
You may not think confidence is a masculine quality. Just google "confidence gender" and see that it is a well established thing that men are more confident than women.
Still, if you were insulted by my implying you are a more feminine man. My apologies. Insult was not intended. I do urge you to move beyond those views, though. Feminine men should be no more an insult than masculine women. Descriptions that offer no value judgement.
That is, if you want progress, stop seeing "feminine men" as somehow a derogatory statement. If you see women arguing for things that you feel you don't have as a man, realize that there is something that would have to set you apart from many men for this to be true.
Now, should overconfidence be a masculine trait? I'd argue not. But I would not place confidence on anyone claiming it is not seen that way in the present world.
Better to use the terms provided, 'low confidence individuals', etc.
If we're saying that losing out on good but low-confidence candidates is a bad thing for a company, and we want to fix it, why don't we adapt our processes to favour the people being disadvantaged? If this ends up helping women more than men, then fantastic.
But why bring gender into our solution at all? Focussing on one gender just because we think they are more affected by an issue just introduces more unfairness. Focus on the issue itself.
So, my logic here is your debate is to simply get people arguing that are on the front lines. You are the one that "thinks" you are just as affected as women in this. If you truly feel that you want to help, drop your self persecution and help.
Again, do I think you are purposely sidelining actual progress? No. I doubt that. However, I do think discussing what are feminine and masculine traits is a distraction. And the most likely outcome from the position you are advertising.
Side note: I noticed the article was quoting tired old tropes like "women are socialised to follow the rules", without evidence.
So, I think this is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.
If companies work to eliminate the low-confidence barrier in hiring it will benefit you as side-effect.
So this is more about you making assumption
Some people take it too far, but the next time you hear someone talk about privilege, try to interpret it to mean "marginal advantage" rather than "privilege=wealth", because that's probably what they mean.
Also, "alienates men who would otherwise be potential allies" doesn't really make sense. Your support for gender equality in tech should not depend on how inclusive and understanding feminists are, it should depend on whether or not you think women deserve equal rights and access in the workplace. Obviously the world is a better place when we all work together and get along, but I think you should strive to make sure your beliefs are not affected by how much you dislike other people who share those beliefs.
who appointed you the gatekeeper of what another thinking, feeling human being ought to think or feel?
maybe you should interpret this as a call to introspect certain trends in feminist politics and communication strategies. if someone tells you "I am feeling alienated because of X" rather than thought-police that person and tell them "no you're wrong and you WILL feel the way I tell you to feel" perhaps it would be of greater utility to consider what the other person is telling you.
also, while we're on the subject of communication, I would like to point out that there has been enormous and widespread political backlash that is due in no small part to the poor communication strategy by many leftist movements.
many (most?) people absolutely do agree with the proposition "women are humans just the same as men and deserve to be treated as such." a lot of those people, however, really do care about how they are spoken to. tone and language choice matters. it is not effective communication or politics to be constantly making accusatory remarks. people really do respond based on their emotions and will oppose those who have been "mean" to them recently, just because of that mood affiliation.
I would also like to live in a world where people give each other the benefit of the doubt. When you read my initial comment, did it really seem more like that I was trying to police someone's thoughts, rather than just recommending a different way of thinking? Especially on a casual internet forum, I generally try to interpret a comment in the best way I can. If someone is really intending to be an asshole then it'll become clear soon enough.
I make one assumption, which I think is well founded (based on utility), which is that it is impossible to persuade people through direct confrontation. Effective persuasion is based on presentation of facts and ideas to those who are receptive to them, but nobody ever became receptive by being confronted directly, and that can be counter-productive. It can make a potentially receptive person become closed to persuasion. They will, in essence, deny facts (even to the point of rejecting empirical proof) and go entirely with mood affiliation and tribal loyalty.
When trying to do political communication of any kind the decision becomes a decision between trying to persuade someone or trying to "other" them and therefore signal to your in-group that they are an enemy. American political communication has really stopped trying to persuade anyone of anything and is now focused entirely on "othering". When I read your initial comment it came across as "othering". You spent a lot of words telling someone that their interpretations were wrong, that they should think and feel differently than they expressed thinking and feeling, and that their disagreement with your position was fundamentally unreasonable.
The premise of cognitive liberty is an assertion that our own thoughts and feelings are just that: our own. They may or not be rational or reasonable or even useful. They might indeed be bad ideas, that do more harm than good. Still, we are free creatures, and we are free to have those thoughts and being criticized on the grounds of what you think is an untenable argument to make because it denies that fundamental freedom.
All of this is just a long-winded way of trying to motivate my next sentences. Disagreement is natural and unavoidable and I believe it is beneficial to tolerate it in most circumstances. Othering and/or thought-policing those who disagree with us is actively harmful, and we've seen the consequences (his name is Donald). The tacit assumption that "my worldview is the best one and my morals are unassailable and those who disagree with me are irrational and/or immoral" is a serious problem. I've seen worse examples of it than your post, but your post was an example of it.
What I think is a much bigger problem is "you are a bad person because you don't believe x", which is quite common American politics and is very counterproductive. There's a big difference between "I hate your beliefs" and "I hate you because of your beliefs".
Basically, I agree that confrontation is not useful, I just find it hard to believe that "you should" is enough to make reasonable people close off. At least in my experience, if you're having a polite conversation with an average person, these minor phrasing choices are not very important.
Finally, as a genuine question, are "who appointed you the gatekeeper" and "maybe you should interpret this as a call to introspect" not just as if not more confrontational than whatever was in my comment? I'm not making an accusation, I had no problem with your phrasing, I just want to understand exactly what you're talking about so I can communicate better.
More accurate predictors include parental education, family wealth, social connections, etc. Mostly what people would describe as social class.