Aggressive or dedicated, analytical or conscientious — in some senses the words can carry the same meanings. But the subtle differences in connotation may be keeping women out of certain jobs, according to a recent study.

Women are less likely to apply for jobs with descriptions heavy in male-connoted terms such as “assertive,” “independent,” “aggressive” or “analytical,” according to German researchers who presented their findings in Munich last week. More stereotypically feminine descriptors such as “dedicated,” “responsible,” “conscientious” or “sociable,” however, tended to appeal to the female participants to a greater degree. Male participants were largely unaffected by specific word choices.

Women should not feel compelled to disqualify themselves for positions for which they’re qualified — this is obvious. But shifting from an ideological level to a practical level, the study brings attention to the importance of conscientiously written job descriptions. That is, companies should re-evaluate their written criteria in consideration of the applicants they may be unintentionally dissuading through word choice.

For example, a careful perusal of a company’s listed job descriptions might reveal that some ambiguously defined adjectives could easily be cut; more concrete task listings could easily replace them and additionally widen the applicant pool.

But this answer isn’t a catch-all, as Mike Cahill, director of Syracuse University Career Services, noted. Adjectives are sometimes worthwhile. “I’m not sure they’re necessary,” Cahill said of descriptors, “but I think they can be helpful in giving a candidate a sense of what the employer requires.”

For Cahill, the key is to be specific about what the company is actually seeking in a candidate. He offered the example of “leadership,” a buzzword in many job descriptions that can mean a different thing to every person. “You have to be careful with labels,” he said. “You need to break it down and describe it.”

It’s also important to note that these job descriptions are typically not written with the intention of limiting the applicant pool; very likely, the upper-level management who write these descriptions simply aren’t aware word choice has any effect at all. Awareness, in this sense, becomes important and should lead to action.

If the employees tasked with writing job descriptions are white and male, for example, they should recognize that these demographic factors could be unintentionally leading them to write posts filled with words and phrases that appeal to white men, as Cahill additionally noted. A quick review of the post by someone of a different gender, race or socioeconomic status could enable the company to identify and address these limiting word choices.

As we continually push to break down the stereotypes that cast men as “aggressive” and women as “responsible,” companies need to take the simultaneous step of recognizing that word choices subtly affect their applicant pools. Companies should re-evaluate their job descriptions within this light.

The immediate and easily addressable issue lies in semantics — just because a female applicant is reluctant to identify herself as “assertive,” does not mean that she does not have the drive and confidence to complete her tasks in a way the company considers “assertive.” Companies lose the unique perspective she could bring to their teams by insisting she describe herself as such.

Nicki Gorny is a junior newspaper and online journalism and Spanish major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at nagorny@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @Nicki_Gorny. 

 

Published on April 9, 2014 at 1:24 am