Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hewlett Packard did some internal research and found that men apply for jobs when they meet 60% of the qualifications but women only apply when they meet 100% of the qualifications.
From that study, there have been articles citing the results and surmising that women lack confidence. This is not the way research works, but needing something to write about, they ran with it. That would have been legitimate had HP asked the women why they didn't apply unless they met all the qualifications, and they cited confidence as being the reason in most cases, but they didn't.
Sheryl Sandberg picked up the faulty ball and wrote a book called, "Lean In". What does that refer to? Her notion that women lack so much confidence that they lean back in meetings, sitting in the corner and not at the table. She also states women question their ability to lead, and are less apt to push for promotions or raises than men. All of this based on a study nobody can get a hold of, but only hear about. That's not data, that's a narrative written around something people have manipulated to fit their agenda in wanting to write an article or book.
It may be true that women don't push for raises or promotions as much as men, I have no idea, but the other items are absurd. I have found men to be the ones leaning back at meetings while women tend to sit up straight, stay engaged, and take notes.
There's an article in Harvard Business Review citing the HP study which the author also questioned, so set out to do her own research. In surveying more than 1,000 mostly professional men and women, the author was told by both men and women that the number one reason for not applying was not wanting to waste time applying for a job they didn't feel they would be considered for. So in the case of women, it wasn't a lack of confidence at all, it was a case of men and women not understanding the hiring process.
This is disturbing in the sense that the HP study is being quoted in books and articles as valid research, when nobody outside of HP has seen the study, and authors are only guessing as to the reasons for the findings.
Bottom line is - women are being painted in a way that makes them appear to be the weaker sex, based on nothing real.
They can quote it in as many books as they want but people in workforce know the truth. In my career I have seen very competitive, confident women who are as aggressive in their career as men. And I am in a male-dominant profession. We have a natural ability to network with others, work on improving ourselves & dress for the job we want. That boosts our confidence a lot. With all the self-help books around, social media & equality in workplace, this is the best time to be a woman in the workforce.
What it shows is that typically women take less risk than men do. A woman would only respond to a job post if they feel they are adequate for the position where many guys would just apply regardless of their skillset just to see if they can get it.
From my years of interviewing candidates, most of the women that I get to interview for IT are usually more qualified than the males that show up.
It may be true that women don't push for raises or promotions as much as men, I have no idea, but the other items are absurd. I have found men to be the ones leaning back at meetings while women tend to sit up straight, stay engaged, and take notes.
You're look at a different level of analysis there (also responding to research with personal anecdotes, but a guy I know told me that was fine).
The women and men already in meetings are a subset selected from the larger group of people that may or may not have applied. If self-confidence is keeping some women from applying and not doing the same for men, what you would see if that the women hired are more confident than the men hired despite the difference being the other way around in the pool of applicants.
I'm citing anecdotal evidence, as did the author of Lean In. Anecdotal evidence can tell us something, but since mine is so blatantly different from hers, I'm questioning what she's saying.
To those who keep referring to the confidence of women, I think you missed the point of my post. There is no research stating women lack confidence in applying for jobs or in the workplace that they are citing. All these writers are doing is pointing to the HP study and drawing conclusions that are based on nothing. Furthermore, it was an internal study, which may be appropriate for the HP world, but says nothing about the rest of the population.
If you look at the research the author of the Harvard Business article did, it's more valid in that it asks the reasons for not applying, and lack of confidence isn't one of the answers that was given. In addition, men and women are pretty close numbers wise in the reasons they gave when they didn't apply.
I don't think the media is painting women as oppressed victims in publishing these bogus articles, I think they're painting women as the weaker, less confident sex - a view point which harms them in the business world. It's an unfair view based on opinion only.
Women are in general held to be more sensitive than men. Some claim this is because they are more intuitive. Sensitive people (men and women) find it harder to push for promotions, raises or be more aggressive with regards to their career.
Women are in general held to be more sensitive than men. Some claim this is because they are more intuitive. Sensitive people (men and women) find it harder to push for promotions, raises or be more aggressive with regards to their career.
Asking for promotions and raises is the one thing I'm uncertain of, but you make an interesting point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
