Latest / Women at Work: Career, Leadership & Modern Work / How the Confidence Gap Undermines Women at Work
Transcript
- Lucas: There's a pattern in career research that keeps showing up, and it's one of those things that once you see it, you can't unsee it. Luna: Okay, I'm ready. What is it? Lucas: The confidence gap. Not the pop-psychology version where we tell women to just believe in themselves more. I mean the structural, data-backed gap in how women and men assess their own readiness for opportunities. Luna: Right. And there's new data on this, isn't there? Lucas: Exactly. The Kapor Center published a study earlier this year looking at job offer acceptance rates. They found that women decline job offers they're qualified for about 40 percent more often than men do. Luna: Forty percent. That's huge. And the reason they give? Lucas: The most common reason was that they didn't feel they had the skills to succeed, even when their resumes clearly showed they did. Meanwhile, men with identical qualifications were far more likely to say, 'I can figure it out.' Luna: And if we're honest, that's not just a women problem. That's a hiring system problem. If the offer is on the table, the company has already decided you're qualified. So why do women still second-guess that signal? Lucas: That's the question. And by the way, if this conversation is helping you think through a career decision or just making sense of patterns you've experienced, we want to mention that listener support is what keeps this show ad-free and independent. If you find value in episodes like this, you can buy us a coffee at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, just a way to keep the conversation going. Luna: Absolutely. And we appreciate every single person who's helped keep this show running. Now back to that confidence gap — what did the Kapor data say about why the gap exists? Lucas: They pointed to two main drivers. First, women are more likely to interpret ambiguity in job descriptions as a lack of fit. If a listing says 'preferred: five years experience,' a woman with four years often reads that as 'not qualified,' while a man with three years reads it as 'close enough.' Luna: And that's not just about personality. That's about how we're socialized to follow rules versus negotiate them. Lucas: Exactly. Second, they found that women's past performance reviews tend to be less specific about strengths and more focused on areas for improvement. So women have less concrete evidence of their own competence to draw on when evaluating a new opportunity. Luna: That's a systems failure, not a personal one. If your performance reviews consistently emphasize what you need to work on, of course you'll doubt yourself when a bigger role appears. Lucas: Right. And there's a parallel finding from Payscale's 2025 salary negotiation survey. They found that women ask for a raise about 15 percent less frequently than men. But when women do ask, they're just as likely to get it. Luna: So the barrier isn't at the negotiation table itself. It's in the moment before, where a woman decides whether she's worth asking. Lucas: Precisely. And the Payscale data shows that the gap is largest for women in their thirties, which is also when career momentum matters most for long-term earnings. That's a compounding problem. Luna: Let's talk about what organizations can do. Because the easy takeaway is 'women just need more confidence,' but that misses the structural piece. Lucas: Absolutely. One fix is to redesign job descriptions. Companies like Buffer and Atlassian have started using 'minimum viable qualifications' instead of laundry lists. They list only the essential skills, not the wish list. That reduces the ambiguity that triggers the confidence gap. Luna: And there's research showing that when you strip out 'ninja,' 'guru,' 'rockstar' language, women apply at higher rates. That's a low-cost change. Lucas: Another intervention is structured interview processes. When candidates are asked the same questions and evaluated on the same rubric, the confidence gap shrinks because the criteria are transparent. You're not guessing what the interviewer wants to hear. Luna: Which also helps with another pattern: women tend to spend more time preparing for interviews, overthinking every possible question. A clear rubric actually rewards that preparation. Lucas: And then there's the promotion side. Some companies have started publishing explicit criteria for each level — not just vague things like 'strategic thinking,' but concrete examples: 'led a project with cross-functional team of five or more.' Luna: That eliminates the 'do I have enough?' guessing game. If you can check the boxes, you know you're qualified. And if you can't, you know exactly what to work on. Lucas: There's also a role for managers here. Research from Harvard Business Review found that when managers proactively nominate women for stretch assignments — rather than waiting for volunteers — women are more likely to take them and succeed. Luna: Because the external validation overrides that internal doubt. 'My boss thinks I can do it' is a powerful signal. Lucas: Exactly. And that's not about coddling anyone. It's about recognizing that the system has historically rewarded self-promotion, which men are socialized to do more. If you want the best talent, you need to actively invite people who might not assume they're invited. Luna: I want to push back on one thing though. There's a risk that we pathologize women's caution as a problem to be fixed, rather than seeing it as a rational response to a biased system. If women have been penalized for being overconfident in the past — and there's data showing they are — then caution is actually smart. Lucas: That's a really important point. The confidence gap isn't just a skill deficit. It's a rational calculation based on lived experience. Women know that if they overclaim and fail, the consequences are harsher. So the solution isn't to tell women to be more like men. It's to make the system fair enough that caution isn't necessary. Luna: Right. And that means changing how we evaluate potential, not just how women present themselves. Lucas: One concrete tactic that I've seen work: some organizations now include a 'potential rubric' in performance reviews. Instead of just evaluating past performance, managers also rate future potential on specific dimensions like learning agility and adaptability. And they calibrate those ratings across gender to check for bias. Luna: That makes sense because potential is subjective. And subjectivity is where bias creeps in. Lucas: Exactly. And when you force managers to define what potential looks like, they're less likely to default to 'he seems confident, she seems unsure.' Luna: So what's the one thing you'd want a listener to take away from this episode? Lucas: That the confidence gap is real, but it's not a personal failing. It's a mismatch between how people are socialized and how hiring and promotion systems currently work. And those systems can be redesigned. The Kapor data shows that when the process is transparent and the criteria are clear, the gap narrows significantly. Luna: I'd add: if you've ever turned down a role because you didn't feel ready, ask yourself if you were actually qualified. Because the company thought you were. That offer is data. Lucas: And if you manage people, think about who you're nominating for stretch assignments. Are you only tapping the people who raise their hands? Or are you also looking for the people who are quietly doing excellent work but might not think to volunteer? Luna: That's a good place to leave it. Thanks for the conversation, Lucas. Lucas: Thanks, Luna. And thanks to everyone listening. We'll see you next time.