top of page
Search

When Experience Shapes Decisions: Rethinking Women's Leadership Data

We’ve all probably encountered this statistic about women vs. men applying for jobs: “Men apply for jobs when they meet only about 60% of the qualifications, while women apply only if they’re 100% qualified.” This statistic, or variations of it, have shown up in books like Lean In and articles derived from internal reports (often attributed to Hewlett‑Packard), and it’s been widely repeated as an explanation or evidence of a ‘confidence gap’ with women applicants [1].

When processing statistics like this, what is often missing is the context behind what is being reported.  Before we lean too heavily on that number as an explanation or a verdict, it’s worth pausing to confirm the research or to factor in the context surrounding the data. 



The Myth and the Evidence

Recent academic work has called this “60% vs. 100%” stat into question. In a large experimental study, with over 10,000 participants, The Behavioural Insights Team found that among more qualified candidates, men and women applied for jobs at similar rates.  Among less-qualified candidates, men applied more frequently than women candidates but with a much smaller gap (about 5%) than previously reported.  And while that particular finding supported wider research that men were more likely to overestimate their capabilities, that small gap was predominantly in stereotypically masculine domains and was specifically tied to how the job description was written. The study found that if the job descriptions were written with clear and specific language instead of ambiguous language, specified the desired individual behaviors or experience, and avoided stereotypically masculine words, qualified men and women applied similarly.  Another interesting finding was that women had a higher self-perception of meeting individual requirements than their overall impression of the job requirements as a whole. This suggests that clarification of the individual requirements of a role could be a promising way to reduce the gender difference in applications [2].

In other words, the real difference in application behavior isn’t as stark as the often-quoted 60 vs. 100 statistic [3], and when there is a difference, clearer language and expectations reduce the gender gap among qualified candidates. 

Why does this matter?

Because when we repeat the exaggerated version of the statistic without context, we unintentionally imply that women’s underrepresentation in leadership is primarily a confidence problem and thus something women need to “fix.” But the research suggests that the story is far more complex.

That still begs the question, what else contributes to the observed behavior among candidates that still appears to be tied to gender?


Sports and Leadership Development

One of the few environments where girls and women do get frequent, structured opportunities to fall, fail, compete, reset, and try again is in sports (when equitable access exists). Unlike many workplace dynamics, athletic fields and courts offer clearer, repeated performance signals, measurable outcomes, and a culture that trains athletes to adapt, persevere, and compete at high levels.

Research shows this translates to leadership outcomes. In an EY Women Athletes Business Network/ESPNW survey of female executives, 94% said they had participated in sport, and 52% reported they’d competed at the university level with many citing their athletic experience as having contributed to their career success [5].

Further, the Women CEOs in America 2025 report notes that about 10.2% of women CEOs have a collegiate or elite athletic background, highlighting how repeated engagement in structured, performance‑based activities can fortify the skills, resilience, and drive necessary for high-level leadership roles [6].

These studies reveal that when girls and women have structured, objective environments that reward resilience, effort, and iteration, they internalize lessons that serve them well in high‑stakes professional roles.

The pattern that starts to emerge is that when parameters around skill, advancement, and measures of success help to mitigate or reduce the impact of bias, the observed gender gaps shrink or disappear.


Context: The Real Contributor

Behavior doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Girls and young women are often socialized with less encouragement to experiment, take risks, and learn through failure. In professional environments, women leaders are often held to higher standards of proficiency than their male peers and are less likely to be afforded the grace to fail and iterate [4].

If every step forward must be backed by documented proof, with less tolerance for error or experimentation, then it becomes rational to wait until you are clearly qualified before advancing. If proof is consistently demanded, people learn to lead with proof or opt out. This is more a reflection of experience shaping decision-making than gender-based behavior in applicants.

These examples illustrate that structured, objective environments help build resilience, strategic risk-taking, and the confidence to act without waiting for external validation.


Reframing the Narrative: What We Can Do

Experience, the accumulation of learning, practice, and supported risk-taking, plays a central role in developing leadership. Beyond providing information and resources to women in leadership roles, for the betterment of our organizations and leadership pipelines, there are multiple opportunities to support and sustain leadership progress across the board.

For Mentors and Sponsors

Savvy mentors and sponsors are aware of these differing standards. They don’t just tell women to be more confident, try harder, or accept that things are just as they are. Instead, they:

  • Actively create opportunities where women can stretch into new responsibilities in a supported environment.

  • Normalize risk, iteration, and learning from mistakes as growth, and do not allow those same learning experiences to be punished or treated as failure.

  • Call attention to the systemic barriers and experiential context that shape women’s decisions.

Formalizing mentor and sponsor roles helps to solidify the progress that comes from these (often) cross-functional leadership relationships. This matters because progress is more likely to be achieved by changing the conditions under which women are making these professional decisions.

For organizations and leaders who want to build equitable leadership pipelines:

  • Re-evaluate job descriptions. Are all listed requirements truly essential, or are they reinforcing barriers?

  • Support stretch experiences. Provide opportunities for women to lead with developmentally appropriate support — not just evaluative pressure.

  • Embed context into decisions. Rather than asking whether someone “checks every box,” ask whether they’ve demonstrated potential given their opportunities so far.

For women leaders:

  • Recognize that your caution is often a reasonable adaptation to real bias — not a flaw.

  • Seek mentors and sponsors who help you expand your comfort zone while advocating for your candidacy.

  • In leadership roles, build in the systems that support the clarity and objectivity necessary to create, increase, and maintain access to opportunities for women and other under-represented identities in leadership.

Our Shared Responsibility

When we create or improve access to opportunities for women, we strengthen organizations, drive better decisions, and tap into a broader pool of leadership talent.  “Leveling the playing field” is not about doing women a favor, it’s about creating systems that sustainably support the advancement of the best leaders regardless of gender or any other identity.

From our work at the Antorge Group through the Confidence Ecosystem Framework and other tools, we know that confidence matters. In this case, confidence isn’t the missing piece — context is. And when we account for context, we open up opportunities for real, sustainable progress.

References

[1] SENC: Women Do Not Apply for Jobs Until Fully Qualified, Harvard Business Review, 2017. https://www.senc.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Women-do-not-apply-Harvard-Business-Review.pdf

[2] BI Team, Gender Differences in Response to Requirements in Job Adverts, 2022. https://www.bi.team/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gender-differences-in-response-to-requirements-in-job-adverts-March-2022.pdf

[3] Salwender et al., Do Women Only Apply When…, European Societies in Psychology, 2024. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/105043/ssoar-eursocpsy-2024-7-salwender_et_al-Do_women_only_apply_when.pdf

[4] Wikipedia, Sex and Gender Differences in Leadership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_differences_in_leadership

[5] Sigma Assessment Systems, Why Women Who Played College Sports Keep Rising to the C-Suite. https://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/succession-watch-why-women-who-played-college-sports-keep-rising-to-the-c-suite/

 

Comments

bottom of page