By Ella Bishop.
Are graduate applications geared against women? The never-ending process of situational judgement tests, numerical reasoning, online tests, interviews, is draining enough without gender bias coming into it. Women hear well-meaning advice, such as ‘Men are assertive…be more confident…’, but is this just a thinly veiled version of telling women to ‘Be more like men’? Instead, should we be advocating shifting the system to value more stereotypically ‘female’ qualities? Of course, many companies assess applications ‘blind’, but this may not be enough, given that ultimately the goal is to reach an in-person assessment like an interview. Moreover, the debate ostensibly relies upon the massive generalisations and gender binaries of ‘male’ and ‘female’ characteristics, but so too does the gender bias of the system. Importantly, there are far more biases – racial, sexuality, gender expression – that happen within applications that are incredibly problematic and deserve great attention and endeavour to correct, however I am purely discussing the gender bias that occurs within graduate applications/tests/interviews. Here’s what companies from a range of industries had to say on the question of the difference between male and female performances within applications.
Numerical reasoning tests, such as the ones necessary for consultancy applications, are potentially the most unbalanced, with men often outperforming women. The very layout of the test appears to disadvantage women: multiple choice questions under timed conditions. Generally, men are more comfortable guessing the ones they have not had time to answer, whereas women are more likely to leave them blank. However, making an educated guess, especially if you can eliminate one or two options, yields higher results and thus men are more successful at it: women are less like to take this risk and it is to their detriment. Whilst on the whole, there was not a significant difference in performance based upon gender, the general feedback was that women could and should be promoting themselves more, being more explicitly proud of their achievements and being more assertive. In case study interviews, men will answer more confidently and will attempt to answer even if they are unsure, where woman can be more hesitant even if they have the right answer. Of course, alternatively, more nuanced and flexible opinions are also valuable, and the advice is definitely not to unthinkingly assert yourself if you know you are wrong, but to confidently present your ideas even if you are not sure.
Interestingly and perhaps predictably, the most generic, unhelpful response was from the investment sector, who gave an, ironically, unconfident, vague account of gender diversity improving. It was decided that generally, they think that last year the gender split at that stage of first interview was proportional to candidates they received, but there is a higher percentage of male applicants, so even by the first stage there tends to be an imbalance. Despite the lack of actionable advice, the evasive answer does suggest that there is an undercurrent of gender bias at graduate application level, even if unconscious, that is not being addressed or solved. But is it the responsibility of companies to level the playing field or does the weight fall upon women to be aware and make these changes?
The most balanced response, a middle way between both recognising bias and creating realistic ways to generate a fairer application system, came from within the consumer goods sector. They identified bias in the system they had set up and altered it, so that it produced a more balanced group of applicants. For example, when listing qualifications needed for a particular role, they will not ask for more than three or four, knowing that women are more likely to only apply to a job if they meet all of the criteria, whereas men are happier applying even if they only meet a few of the required qualifications. Additionally, they acknowledge that women are more likely to talk about their achievements in terms of what ‘we’ or ‘the team’ did or use verbiage such as ‘assisted’ or ‘helped’, rather than focusing on what ‘I’ accomplished. Therefore, they bring this awareness into an interview and practise asking what interviewees themselves did specifically.
Realistically, I think the responsibility remains upon women to make the changes that enable them to perform better in interviews. There is a clear variation of approaches towards gender bias across various industries and of course for the majority of jobs, hiring should not be based upon gender, but regardless of gender. But it is undeniable that this bias, as well as many others, does exist and therefore there is a need to equalise applications. There does not seem to be an overall, external pressure on companies to be levelling the playing field. Fundamentally, it rests on the individuals who are in positions of power within companies to be pushing for this internal change and it should be on all of our agendas for when we are able to make these changes ourselves, in order to help the generations that come after us.