Women Talk Differently about Their Work

Research from Wharton economist Judd Kessler shows that how we talk about our work matters to our success. It’s a subject that hasn’t been studied much; performance is, after all, also objective (and that is much easier to measure and discuss. Kessler says, “It’s one thing to answer a question like: how many units did you sell this year? Or how many new clients did you sign on? But a lot of communication about performance and ability is subjective. There’s no right answer.”

Kessler’s research showed that women systematically rate themselves lower than men on work performance even when their work may be viewed objectively as being better. They underplay achievements and use less effusive language to describe the work they’ve done (“pretty good” is a common understated descriptor.) The gap between men and women in subjective descriptions shows up in interviews, presentations to management, and performance reviews, all of which can have a significant impact on career trajectory, promotions, and earnings.

The study recruited about 4,000 subjects from an online labor market platform. The first thing they did was take a math and science test — 20 questions taken from the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery Test used to measure cognitive ability. The reserachers asked the subjects, how well do you think you did? Out of 20 questions, tell me the number that you think you got correct. This was a way to measure their confidence.

Kessler says the gender gap became apparent when men and women were asked to describe their performance subjectively. “Then we asked our subjective questions — describe performance on the test with an adjective that ranged from very poor to exceptional. We also asked questions on the zero to 100 scale with statements like, ‘I performed well on the test.’ What we found was that men and women performed equally well on average. In fact, if you look across all of our subjects, women performed maybe half a question better. But the men rated themselves much more favorably on all of these scales. On the zero to 100 scale, men gave themselves ratings that were 25% higher than the ratings women gave themselves.”

Women underrated themselves objectively as well. Even though men and women on average each got about 10 questions correct, men said they got 11 correct, and women said they got eight correct. Kessler says there was clear evidence that men and women had different perceptions of their underlying ability.

The researchers thought perhaps there might be a gender gap in judging performance. They gave information to study subjects about performance on the test (getting 10 correct answers.) It was their own performance they were judging, but the subjects didn’t know that. The gender gap disappeared; both men and women judged others’ performance objectively. Only when asked to talk about their own performance did women start to downplay results.

It will surprise no woman to hear this news, and they will also not be surprised to learn that women face different feedback than men for appearing to be confident. What is perceived as healthy confidence in a man is often perceived as arrogant is women.

But there might be even more at play here. Because the questions the subjects tested on were math and science-based, the researchers wondered if women were simply less confident because they believed men would be better at these subjects. Sure enough, when they switched the task to language-related questions, the gender gap in confidence and subjective description went away. Ugh.

What should be done? Kessler’s team thinks it would be unfair to put the burden of talking differently and doing more self-promotion on women. (The backlash issue is real.) He says that employers should be aware of the difference in styles and factor self-promotion and subject language much less into their hiring and promotion decisions.

Of course, that may be challenging, since managers and recruiters are human (at least for now) and will probably have their own internal biases. They may lean toward more confident candidates or value more modesty if that aligns with their own style.

If you’re a woman who has trouble talking about achievements, you’re not alone. It may help to have data on hand that will aid a manager or interviewer see the full picture. It might sound like this:

“I think the sales curriculum overhaul turned out pretty well. Most teams improved their performance after training by 10%, which increased revenue by over $7 million last year. That exceeded our expectations. Next year, we’ll be focusing on correcting some operational inefficiencies to see if we can make similar gains in productivity.”

Killer results, presented with humility. It just may catch on.

Women Talk Differently about Their Work

Research from Wharton economist Judd Kessler shows that how we talk about our work matters to our success. It’s a subject that hasn’t been studied much; performance is, after all, also objective (and that is much easier to measure and discuss. Kessler says, “It’s one thing to answer a question like: how many units did you sell this year? Or how many new clients did you sign on? But a lot of communication about performance and ability is subjective. There’s no right answer.”

Kessler’s research showed that women systematically rate themselves lower than men on work performance even when their work may be viewed objectively as being better. They underplay achievements and use less effusive language to describe the work they’ve done (“pretty good” is a common understated descriptor.) The gap between men and women in subjective descriptions shows up in interviews, presentations to management, and performance reviews, all of which can have a significant impact on career trajectory, promotions, and earnings.

The study recruited about 4,000 subjects from an online labor market platform. The first thing they did was take a math and science test — 20 questions taken from the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery Test used to measure cognitive ability. The reserachers asked the subjects, how well do you think you did? Out of 20 questions, tell me the number that you think you got correct. This was a way to measure their confidence.

Kessler says the gender gap became apparent when men and women were asked to describe their performance subjectively. “Then we asked our subjective questions — describe performance on the test with an adjective that ranged from very poor to exceptional. We also asked questions on the zero to 100 scale with statements like, ‘I performed well on the test.’ What we found was that men and women performed equally well on average. In fact, if you look across all of our subjects, women performed maybe half a question better. But the men rated themselves much more favorably on all of these scales. On the zero to 100 scale, men gave themselves ratings that were 25% higher than the ratings women gave themselves.”

Women underrated themselves objectively as well. Even though men and women on average each got about 10 questions correct, men said they got 11 correct, and women said they got eight correct. Kessler says there was clear evidence that men and women had different perceptions of their underlying ability.

The researchers thought perhaps there might be a gender gap in judging performance. They gave information to study subjects about performance on the test (getting 10 correct answers.) It was their own performance they were judging, but the subjects didn’t know that. The gender gap disappeared; both men and women judged others’ performance objectively. Only when asked to talk about their own performance did women start to downplay results.

It will surprise no woman to hear this news, and they will also not be surprised to learn that women face different feedback than men for appearing to be confident. What is perceived as healthy confidence in a man is often perceived as arrogant is women.

But there might be even more at play here. Because the questions the subjects tested on were math and science-based, the researchers wondered if women were simply less confident because they believed men would be better at these subjects. Sure enough, when they switched the task to language-related questions, the gender gap in confidence and subjective description went away. Ugh.

What should be done? Kessler’s team thinks it would be unfair to put the burden of talking differently and doing more self-promotion on women. (The backlash issue is real.) He says that employers should be aware of the difference in styles and factor self-promotion and subject language much less into their hiring and promotion decisions.

Of course, that may be challenging, since managers and recruiters are human (at least for now) and will probably have their own internal biases. They may lean toward more confident candidates or value more modesty if that aligns with their own style.

If you’re a woman who has trouble talking about achievements, you’re not alone. It may help to have data on hand that will aid a manager or interviewer see the full picture. It might sound like this:

“I think the sales curriculum overhaul turned out pretty well. Most teams improved their performance after training by 10%, which increased revenue by over $7 million last year. That exceeded our expectations. Next year, we’ll be focusing on correcting some operational inefficiencies to see if we can make similar gains in productivity.”

Killer results, presented with humility. It just may catch on.

Listen to the Knowledge at Wharton podcast here.