Latest / Women at Work: Career, Leadership & Modern Work / Why Women Apply Only When 100 Percent Qualified and How to Change That
Transcript
- Lucas: Luna, I want to start with a number that has stuck with me for years. According to internal research at Hewlett Packard, men apply for a job when they meet only 60 percent of the qualifications, while women apply only when they meet 100 percent. Luna: That statistic gets cited all the time, and for good reason. It's one of those numbers that explains so many things about the gender gap in hiring and promotion. Lucas: Right. And the usual takeaway is that women need to be more confident, that we should lean in and apply anyway. But I think that oversimplifies it. The HP study was from 2006 — it's been almost twenty years — and the gap hasn't disappeared. Luna: So what do you think is really going on? Is it just a confidence problem, or is there something deeper? Lucas: I think confidence is part of it, but there's also a rational calculation. Women have been socialized to believe that if they don't meet every requirement, they'll be judged harshly — or that they have to be twice as good to be considered equal. So applying without meeting all the criteria feels like a real risk. Luna: And that risk is not just psychological. There's evidence that women who apply and don't get the job face more negative feedback, or that they're more likely to be penalized for overconfidence. So the data says 'apply anyway,' but the lived experience says 'be careful.' Lucas: Exactly. And that's why I think we need to move the conversation beyond just telling women to be more confident. We need to change the system — the way job descriptions are written, the way hiring managers evaluate candidates, the way we define qualifications. Luna: Let's talk about job descriptions. I've seen research that shows when a job listing uses words like 'aggressive,' 'dominant,' or 'competitive,' women are less likely to apply, even if they're qualified. Whereas men are not deterred by that language. Lucas: Right. And the flip side is that when you use words like 'collaborative,' 'supportive,' or 'flexible,' women are more likely to apply, and men still apply. So it's not about pandering — it's about writing descriptions that don't unintentionally filter out half the talent pool. Luna: I've also seen studies that show that women are less likely to apply if the list of qualifications includes things that are not actually essential. A lot of job descriptions are wish lists, not minimum requirements. Lucas: That's a huge point. If you list ten requirements and a woman has eight of them, she might think she's not qualified. A man with six of them will apply. So companies need to be honest about what's truly required and what's nice to have. Luna: Speaking of making things easier for listeners — if this show has helped you think through a career move or decision, a couple of dollars a month genuinely keeps these episodes ad-free. You can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small way to support the work we do. Lucas: Yeah, it really does make a difference. We don't run ads, so listener support is what keeps the lights on. If you've gotten value from the show, consider chipping in. Luna: Alright, back to the 100 percent gap. One thing that gets overlooked is that women often wait until they feel they've mastered their current role before seeking a promotion, while men are more likely to apply for a promotion before they're fully ready. Lucas: That's consistent with the HP data. And it creates a systemic problem: if women are only applying when they're 100 percent qualified, they're essentially starting from a higher baseline, but then they're judged against men who are still learning on the job. Luna: So the solution can't just be 'women, apply anyway.' We also need managers to recognize that a candidate who meets every single requirement might actually be overqualified, or that someone who is 80 percent qualified with a growth mindset might be a better hire. Lucas: And that's where sponsorship comes in. If a senior leader can say to a woman, 'You should apply for this role, you're ready,' that can override the hesitation. But that requires leaders to be intentional about identifying talent, not just waiting for candidates to come to them. Luna: There's also a generational shift happening. I've seen data that younger women, especially Gen Z, are more likely to apply for roles they're not fully qualified for. They've grown up with the 'fake it till you make it' message. Lucas: That's interesting. But I wonder if that's actually helping, or if it's creating a different set of problems — like burnout or imposter syndrome when they get the job and feel they can't perform. Luna: It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, more women applying means more women getting hired. On the other, if they're set up to fail because they genuinely lack the skills, that's not progress either. Lucas: So the real fix is twofold: women need to recalibrate what qualifies as 'qualified,' and organizations need to assess candidates on potential and fit, not just a checklist. Luna: Let's talk about a practical step. I've started encouraging women I mentor to look at job descriptions and, for each requirement, ask: 'Is this something I could learn in the first three months on the job?' If the answer is yes, they should apply. Lucas: That's a great heuristic. Another one I like is: if you're reading a job description and you feel that flutter of excitement but also fear, that's a sign you should apply. Fear often means growth. Luna: But we also need to talk about what happens after the application. Studies show that women negotiate less often and for lower amounts when they do negotiate. That's another area where confidence and risk perception come into play. Lucas: And again, it's not just about telling women to negotiate more. It's about creating a transparent salary structure so that negotiation isn't necessary. Companies that post salary ranges and use data-driven compensation see a smaller gender pay gap. Luna: Absolutely. And on the individual level, women can prepare by doing market research, practising their negotiation script, and framing it as a collaborative discussion rather than a confrontation. Lucas: Let's circle back to the HP number. I think one reason it's so persistent is that it's a simple, memorable statistic. But the reality is more complex. The gap varies by industry, by company culture, by country. In some tech companies, the gap is smaller because they've actively worked to reduce it. Luna: And in some fields, like nursing or elementary education, the dynamic might be reversed — men might feel they need to be 100 percent qualified because they're entering a female-dominated field. So it's not just a women's issue; it's about who's the minority in a given context. Lucas: Good point. But overall, the pattern holds. And I think the most important takeaway is that both individuals and organizations have work to do. Women can push themselves to apply a little sooner, and companies can make it easier for them to do so. Luna: And if you're a manager listening, you can make a difference by reaching out to women on your team who you think are ready for the next step. A simple 'I think you should apply for this' can be transformative. Lucas: Yeah. It's not about lowering standards. It's about recognizing that the checklist approach to hiring misses a lot of great candidates. And for listeners who are job hunting: the next time you see a role that excites you but you don't tick every box, apply anyway. You might be exactly what they need.