A recent conversation within our team sparked an important reflection on how different people approach job applications, particularly around job titles, confidence, and self-presentation. One of our team members shared an interesting observation: two talented and experienced candidates reacted quite differently to the question of how their roles would align with a client’s expectations.
One, a woman with impressive experience at top-tier brands, was notably cautious about reframing her job title despite a clear alignment between her experience and the role in question. The other, a male candidate, was more comfortable describing himself in terms that stretched beyond the formal scope of his current experiences.
This prompted us to dig deeper, not into who’s right or wrong, but into how different people interpret and express their fit for a role, particularly in the tech world, where women and other underrepresented groups often face systemic barriers. By better understanding these day-to-day nuances in how people present themselves, we can help shape more inclusive conversations with candidates and support our clients in building fairer, more equitable hiring processes.
🔄 When Job Titles Don’t Tell the Whole Story
In fields like product management and UX, job titles can vary widely between companies, even when the underlying responsibilities are remarkably similar. What one company calls a Product Manager, another might refer to as a Product Owner, Product Strategist, or even a UX Lead, depending on team structure, company size, or methodology. This variation is especially common when roles evolve over time, but the associated job specifications aren’t regularly reviewed or updated to reflect that change.
This variability can make alignment tricky, especially when clients or hiring managers are looking for specific wording or titles as proxies for certain skill sets.
In this context, candidates are often encouraged to consider whether their job titles could be better tailored to help external stakeholders understand their value. However, for some, particularly those from highly structured environments, this can feel disingenuous or uncomfortable.
🧠The Confidence Gap: Understanding the Application Threshold
There’s a widely shared narrative in hiring circles that men apply for jobs when they meet around 60% of the listed qualifications, while women wait until they meet nearly 100%. This idea originates from an internal Hewlett-Packard report, which, although frequently cited, hasn’t been publicly verified and is now regarded as anecdotal rather than scientific fact.
That said, additional data does suggest that women tend to self-select out of opportunities earlier in the application process. LinkedIn’s Gender Insights Report found that women are less likely than men to apply for a job after viewing it, even when they are similarly qualified. The report also showed that women are more likely to screen themselves out by interpreting job requirements more literally or conservatively.
This trend resonates with what we’ve experienced firsthand in recruitment: many highly capable women hesitate to put themselves forward unless they meet every aspect of a job spec, while others may discount themselves based on wording alone. As noted by Harvard Business Review, this behaviour often stems not from a lack of confidence but from a belief that the listed criteria are non-negotiable, rather than open to interpretation.
💬 Self-Representation vs. Stretching: A Spectrum of Approaches
Rather than viewing one approach as “overstated” and another as “underconfident,” it's more helpful to consider that people express their experience differently. Some see job applications as a place to stake a claim in future potential; others take a more literal or precise view.
Previous articles from The Guardian and Washington Post report that many men are more likely to frame their experience in aspirational terms. In contrast, many women are more likely to understate or limit themselves to demonstrable evidence.
But this isn’t about being opportunistic or cautious, it’s about comfort levels with ambiguity, interpretations of risk, and broader social conditioning. Recognising that difference is key to fairer hiring.
🎠Imposter Syndrome and the "Earned Title" Mindset
Particularly in tech and product, where women remain underrepresented, the weight of impostor syndrome can be heavy. Even competent candidates may feel uncomfortable stepping into a title they haven't “officially” earned, even if the experience clearly supports it.
This sense of needing to prove oneself over and over again is a recurring theme in the industry, as highlighted by Product School. It can manifest as hesitation to put oneself forward unless every box is ticked and every title fully justified.
🧠Bias in Interpretation: Confidence vs. Competence
A final piece of the puzzle is how hiring managers and clients interpret what they see. Harvard research suggests that confidence is often mistaken for competence, leading to unconscious biases in decision-making. People who articulate their fit boldly are often seen as more capable, even when their experience is not stronger than that of others who are more reserved.
This doesn’t mean that one style is more honest or effective; it means we must develop a sharper awareness of how presentation styles can influence perception, particularly when comparing candidates of equal merit.
💡 Reframing How We Evaluate Talent
What started as an internal discussion about two applicants quickly opened the door to a broader reflection on how people behave and self represent in the hiring process.
As hiring teams, recruiters, or clients, we can play an important role by:
- Understanding that job titles are not a universal currency, especially in roles like Product and UX.
- Looking beyond the title and into the real scope and depth of someone’s impact.
- Recognising that some candidates may be underplaying, not underqualified.
- Questioning whether our own preferences reward confidence over competence, and taking steps to address that.
The more we understand how people approach opportunities, the better we can design hiring processes that are inclusive, insightful, and genuinely representative of talent.
If you have questions about your hiring process or want us to help with tailoring your recruitment process to find the best talent within Product, UX, Data, Engineering or Executive Search then feel free to contact us today.
NOTE: While this blog discusses gender differences primarily in terms of women and men, we acknowledge that this is a general overview and does not fully reflect the experiences of non-binary or gender-diverse individuals. We recognise the importance of inclusive hiring practices for all identities and are committed to continuing these conversations with that in mind.
