Why women don’t apply for Board Roles as often as men but should

According to LinkedIn’s research, it seems that women are less likely to apply for senior and presumably board roles than men. Anecdotally, research also shows that in order to apply for a job, women feel they need to meet 100% of the criteria, while men usually apply after meeting about 60%.  As one Forbes article put it, “Men are confident about their ability at 60%, whilst women don’t feel confident until they’ve checked off each item on the list.” Other studies have found similar results.

These latter findings come from an internal Hewlett-Packard report and have been quoted in dozens of articles. It’s usually invoked as evidence that women need more confidence. The advice: women need to have more faith in themselves. Whilst the validity of these statistics is debatable, for many, myself included, this notion often rings true.

A further study found that ‘a significant, but not robust gender difference in the predicted direction in the relationship between application intention and qualification fit ’. However, it did indicate that for women, psychological hurdles (i.e., desire for preparedness, fears and other gender-relevant indicators assessed) are higher in application situations than for men. 

Let me explain…, but before I do, I want to acknowledge that being a man speaking on an issue that affects so many women might be interpreted as mansplaining or wokeness, and it makes me nervous. But still, I think it is a topic worth considering – particularly in light of board appointments.

Is it true that women are less likely to apply for board roles?

LinkedIn produced a study that examined the job search behaviour of their users in great detail. They found that despite viewing the same number of jobs and just as many company pages as men, women:

• Were 16% less likely to apply for positions they had viewed on LinkedIn, and in general
• Applied to 20% fewer vacancies than men do
• Were less likely to apply for positions that were more senior than their current position.

Furthermore, in a survey published in the Harvard Business Review, a thousand men and women were asked why they did not apply for a role where they did not meet ALL of the requirements; they received the following responses:

• I didn’t think they would consider me since I didn’t meet the qualifications. I didn’t want to waste my time and energy: Women 41% – Men 46%
• I was being respectful of the time and preferences of the person reviewing applications – they had already made clear who they were looking for: Women 13% – Men 20%
• I didn’t think they would hire me since I didn’t meet the qualifications, and I didn’t want to put myself out there if I was likely to fail: Women 22% – Men 12%
• I didn’t think I could do the job well: Women 9% – Men 12%
• I was following the guidelines about who should apply: Women 15% – Men 9%.

And according to LinkedIn’s research, recruiters were 13% less likely to click on a woman’s profile than a man’s and 3% less likely to send her an InMail than they would her male counterpart.

If less likely to apply for senior and presumably board roles than men, what is driving this?

Is it a matter of confidence?
Looking at the results, it’s clear that a lack of confidence (in being able to do the job) was not the reason they didn’t apply. In both men and women, only a small percentage believed that they could not do the job well.

Just not qualified?
For both men and women, the most common reason for not applying was that they didn’t think they met the qualifications and didn’t want to waste their time and energy. This suggests people don’t apply because they don’t believe they can do the job, but because they believe they won’t be hired in the first place due to missing required qualifications.

Risking Failure?
~22% of women who responded to the survey admitted they didn’t submit an application because they didn’t want to put themselves out there if they were likely to fail. To them, the risk of failure was simply too big. Women may be right to worry more about potential failure. Some evidence suggests women’s failures are remembered longer than those of their male counterparts. Notably, only 12% of men cited risk of failure as their top reason for not submitting an application.

Bad Fit?
Among respondents who did not apply mainly because they were strictly adhering to guidelines about who should apply, 15% of women cited this as their reason, compared with only 9% of men. Studies have shown that girls are taught to follow rules more than boys, resulting in women being less likely to overstep and instead following guidelines strictly, rather than taking a risk and applying even when they believe they could do the job.

Whilst these statistics seem to favour men, it is fair to say that both sexes face similar issues when it comes to applying for roles. However, these issues seem to affect women more often.

What should women do differently to get a board appointment?

A McKinsey report found that men are often hired or promoted based on their potential, while women are more often hired for their experience and track record. We found that women pay much more attention to the written application than men do, clearly stating how they meet the requirements.

Moreover, participants (women in particular) in these surveys did not see the hiring process as a place where advocacy, relationships, and convincing the hiring manager of their expertise could overcome gaps in meeting the key requirements. Instead, if they had the right perception of the hiring process, they might have applied and might have been the ones to walk away with the job.

The report also showed that women don’t need more confidence in themselves; rather, they need a better understanding of the hiring process so they can be convinced they might well be ‘good enough’ through the lens of the person making the hiring decisions. This is exactly what we teach our members to do – male or female.

Back yourself – the statistics support you

A recent study (in fact, a few) found that boards with a higher percentage of women have a competitive advantage over men-only boards because more diverse thinking boosts decision-making quality, creativity, and innovation. 

Further, whilst LinkedIn found women were 16% less likely to apply for positions they had viewed on LinkedIn and, in general, women apply to 20% fewer vacancies than men do, LinkedIn’s data also showed that: Women are 16% more likely than men to get hired after applying for a job and 18% more likely than men to get hired after applying to more senior roles.

If you have never put an application forward because you thought you didn’t meet all the key criteria, let this be your wake-up call.  Companies often appoint people to their boards not on the basis of their qualifications, but because they are convinced the person can do the job. So, male or female, if you find a role that seems like a challenge you would like to take on, go for it even if you don’t think you’re the perfect candidate. 

Related Articles

How to stay positive and build confidence whilst pursuing a board appointment

The style, format and content of a Board CV that gets results