The Confidence Gap: Why Executive Shortlists Are Still Mostly Men

What I see every single week

Men will frequently shoot their shot for roles they aren't remotely qualified for. They simply don't care. They hit apply anyway.

Women, on the other hand, rarely apply unless they hit at least 95% of the criteria. If it isn't a near-perfect match, they scroll past.

You see it most clearly at the very top. A man will see an Executive role and immediately declare himself the perfect fit. He rarely pauses to ask about the actual scope, who his future peers will be, or whether there's any real cultural alignment. Meanwhile, an objectively stronger female candidate is talking herself out of even raising her hand.

Don't mistake confidence for capability

Here's the trap. The system rewards projection more than precision.

Confidence is often just a high tolerance for rejection. Plenty of executives didn't get to the C-suite by meeting 90% of anything. Some got there through confidence, networks, or someone else doing the heavy lifting behind the scenes. I've worked with leaders who are exceptional, and leaders who make you wonder how they passed the interview.

That isn't a dig at men. It's a structural observation. Boys are taught from a very early age that they must always try and initiate, and that when they fail, they aren't allowed to be sad or embarrassed or hurt. They suck it up and try again. A lot. So you end up with people who throw the net as wide as they can stomach, and when they come up empty, the emotional impact is minimal, at least on the surface. They just try again.

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." "Fortune favours the bold." "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." "Real men don't quit." "Man up."

Society demanded male audacity, then is surprised when it got it.

Where the bias is actually built. The job ad.

There is an art and a psychology to a job ad. And most exec briefs get it wrong before a single candidate sees them.

Best practice is to post 3 to 5 genuinely essential criteria. Every additional criterion you bolt on is another reason for a strong female candidate to self-select out. It is also another fence that an averagely-qualified male candidate will happily ignore.

Then there's the language. Competitive, hustle, ninja, rockstar, warrior. Every one of those words narrows the funnel without improving the shortlist. Inclusive toning isn't soft. It's commercially smarter, because it widens the pipe at the top without lowering the bar at the bottom.

And if your parental leave is genuinely good, say so. If your flexibility policy is real and not theatre, say so. The signals matter. They tell strong female candidates that this isn't a place where they'll spend the first six months proving they belong.

Why posting alone won't fix the exec funnel

I've been seriously rethinking whether to post executive roles publicly at all.

For senior leadership, the strongest results consistently come from approaching exceptional women directly about specific roles. Meaningful, considered, personal encouragement goes a long way. "I've watched what you've built. I think you'd be world-class at this. Here's why." That conversation lands very differently than a job ad.

The women who say yes to that conversation often weren't going to apply through any normal channel. Not because they couldn't do the job. Because the way the role was packaged didn't invite them in.

What hiring leaders can actually do this quarter

• Cut the criteria list in half. If it isn't truly essential to perform in the first 12 months, it's a filter, not a requirement.
• Audit the language. Strip out competitive, hustle, warrior, ninja. Replace with outcome-led language that describes the actual work.
• Make the inclusive signals explicit. Parental leave, flexibility, return-to-work pathways, peer composition. If you have it, say it.
• Don't rely on the inbound funnel for senior roles. Direct, personalised approaches consistently produce more diverse shortlists at the executive level.
• Pressure-test the confident candidate. The one who declared themselves a perfect fit in 30 seconds. Probe the scope, the peer set, the cultural alignment. Hold them to the same standard you'd apply to anyone else.
• Hold the same line both ways. When candidates aren't right, tell them why. Plainly. The energy that drives someone to apply at 50% match should also be able to absorb a clear "not this one."

The real point

The confidence gap is real. The capability gap is not. Every exec search I run reminds me that the women I'm calling are, on paper and in practice, more than ready. They just weren't going to put their hand up first.

If we want different leadership outcomes, we have to design the front door of the process differently. Shorter criteria lists. Cleaner language. Honest signals. And, for the most senior roles, the willingness to pick up the phone and go and find the right person.

That's the work. And it's worth doing.