The proportion of women in leadership roles in India, is a recurrently disappointing statistic, even in the 21st century. Despite the growing enthusiasm among recruiters and companies to increase the number of women in their workforce, invisible barriers often stand in the way. These invisible barriers reflect the biases while at the same time perpetuating the same societal conditioning that can discourage women from applying to and pursuing opportunities for career advancement. For women to see themselves represented in important and high-level job positions, it is crucial to address these challenges and empower them, while also pursuing practical solutions to often overlooked aspects that hinder professional growth for women.
In the Indian corporate sector, women's overall workforce participation grew from 23.9% in 2016 to 26.8% in 2024 according to a report by LinkedIn and The Quantum Hub, a Delhi-based consulting firm. While the "growth" is a good sign, it is still disappointing to see half the country's population only making up around a quarter of the corporate workforce. Tunnelling in on the Social Impact sector, which the EquiLead initiative is primarily targeting, only 26% of organisations have more than 80% women in leadership positions according to the 2020 Women’s Leadership in the Development Sector study by Arthan and the Rockefeller Foundation. Various factors perpetuate a patriarchal cycle that often leads us to associate leadership with masculinity, causing this issue.
Although the application process is only the starting point of obtaining a job position, I found disappointing statistics even at this level. According to a movemeon article, “on average, women would view 25% more jobs before making an application than a man”. This led me to believe there was a discord in the process of application where a woman gets discouraged from applying for a job, which could be traced back to the job descriptions they interact with. I was curious to see if gendered wording in job descriptions could have an impact on the likelihood of women applying for their desired positions
The Problem Statement
aikyam fellows' collaboration with EquiLead aims to leverage technology to build a platform that reflects the initiative's goals and reaches aspiring women social impact leaders in India. As part of this collaboration, we explored how gendered language in job descriptions can deter women from applying for leadership positions, and how we can instead utilise wording in job descriptions to encourage women to apply for leadership positions.
How we went about it
Secondary Research
The most relevant and notable study our research hinged upon was a study conducted by the University of Waterloo and Duke, in where a large association of gender with words was identified, with some words being more ‘masculine-coded’, (eg. active, adventurous, headstrong) and some more ‘feminine-coded’ (eg. interpersonal, polite, enthusiastic). This is again a result of societal conditioning where the mere fact of more men being in leadership positions leads to the false notion that men are better leaders. It was also found that women were immediately deterred from applying to jobs with more masculine-coded wording. However, unlike women, it was observed that feminine-worded job descriptions did not deter men from applying to those roles . This information is also supported by reports from The World Economic Forum and The Harvard Business Review, where some context explained that masculine-coded wording can indicate to women that a certain position is typically held by a man, and they would be apprehensive to apply due to a fear of facing bias at the workplace.
Beyond gendered wording, we also identified three other important aspects to consider when altering job descriptions.
1. Stating Necessary Requirements: Women only apply to a job if they meet 100% of qualifications, whereas men apply while meeting just 60%. By listing only essential qualifications by which women can accurately assess their capabilities, companies can encourage more women to apply without deterring male applicants.
2. Clear Focus on Expectations: Job descriptions should clearly outline the objectives the candidate is expected to meet, rather than describing ideal attributes. This can lead to gendered and vague language, deterring female applicants.
3. Explicit Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Including a statement about the company’s commitment to a fair application process and workplace inclusion can reassure female applicants about the workplace culture.
Primary Research
To further explore this issue first-hand, we used a gender decoder tool, based on the University of Waterloo and Duke study, to analyse 85 job descriptions directly from the EquiLead platform. The results are visualised below:
Masculine-Coded Job Descriptions
Feminine-Coded Job Descriptions
Insights:
The major differences we spotted while inspecting the word clouds were:
- masculine-coded job descriptions: common words include ‘lead’, ‘strategic’, ‘impact’, and ‘management’
- feminine-coded job descriptions: common words include ‘teams’, ‘support’, ‘social’, and ‘education’
- neutral job descriptions: common words include ‘experience’, ‘project’, ‘candidates’ and ‘development’.
The differences in word usage across these job descriptions highlight the impact of gendered language. Masculine-coded language emphasizes leadership and strategy. Feminine-coded language focuses on teamwork and social aspects. Neutral language, on the other hand, is more project-oriented and focuses less on attributes of the candidate!
