> Our ultimate goal is to have the best people here, doing their best work.
Yet you have to tailor your ad language so more women apply because they get scared by words like "objectives"?
I don't even know where to start here.
Yet you have to tailor your ad language so more women apply because they get scared by words like "objectives"?
I don't even know where to start here.
> Studies have shown that that women are less likely to respond to an ad that has overly masculine or aggressive language (despite being qualified), whereas men will apply regardless.
Having a job description more gender friendly encourages more women to apply and men will apply regardless.
You should read the article liked to this article - https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...
Women apply to jobs only if they are 100% qualified whereas men doesn't get deterred by lack of qualification.
You mean:
- leading
- competitive
- objectives
- driven
- independently
And this is what is considered "masculine". Not only that sounds incredibly sexist and stereotypical, it is demeaning for women who would consider themselves possessing one or more of the above traits.
For reference, I am a woman but I am often discouraged to show leadership skills or be competitive with others, especially with guys at work. I can feel the air change when I exhibit these traits. People start to distant themselves from me because I don't fit the culture norm. I feel I can do a much better job if I showed more feminine traits like listening more and being empathetic and showing I'm a team player.
So yeah, it is easy for a guy to be critical because he has no experience in the matter!
If you want to know more about how women are treated differently here's an article - https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604/these-women-entrepreneu...
Men are not immune to this either. I have been successful in many work endeavors in the past and drew praise from management, to discover soon after that half the team would subtly dislike me because I'd make their work look bad.
Also, competitive people with leadership skills are an asset to any company. I'd advise you and anyone else move on if you are not fairly valued, regardless of gender.
I don't see where the article shows that men will apply at the same rate regardless of aggressive language.
The trade-off of less aggressive language resulting in both more applicants but also a higher percentage of under-qualified applicants will eventually reach some inflection point where it becomes unproductive, as you're almost certain to already have a well-qualified fit in the batch of interviewees.
What you miss here is that men are often overconfident and women are under-confident. It has nothing to do with qualification. It has everything to do with confidence.
And yes, women are often less confident because tech is an industry often marketed for men.
I think it's great that Circle is trying to do their part in being as inclusive-minded as the can be from the research they've collected.
If at the end of the day that is somewhat misguided, I'm sure they'll readjust, given that they have already proven they will, where many others have either explicitly not cared, or never even thought to.
By trying this hard to become "inclusive" for women they are potentially discriminating against others.