Are we doing enough?

For years now, I’ve been working on finding as many ways to elevate women within the Australian security market. In that time, I’ve been asked for all kinds of things – some stranger than others – but several requests have really hit a nerve with me.

Those are the ones that made me wonder: despite everything that I try to do – and groups like AWSN- Australian Women in Security Network and others do – is it really going to make a difference?

Job specifications are a good example.

I get job specs sent to me more often than I can say, along with requests to help figure out how to find more female applicants.

I have had this job spec out in the market and also pushed it through a recruiter for several weeks,” one cover letter said, “and we had one female applicant for this position out of 32. How can I increase the diversity within our company, if I can’t even get females to apply for positions in my team?

But is the real issue the job spec – or are we women doing ourselves a disservice because we don’t think we are good enough?

To try to get an answer, I put this job spec to the test. I sent it to several individuals within the security community who are well versed in job hunting. These are people that I highly respect, and trust to tell me how I could advise this company without the BS.

The instant feedback said it all:

• I see many issues with these job descriptions, and why they just aren’t appealing for women.
• I would never apply for this job.
• The language used sounds like this role is for a man.
• The list of certifications and education required would put anyone off and is not necessary.

Some of these esteemed individuals took valuable time to rewrite the job description and advise on the roles – and the company finally started to see a difference in the diversity of the applicants.

So, what was different?

To answer this question, let me direct your attention to the Gender Decoder – a text parser that analyses job ads (or other text) for hidden biases that many people often use, quite unconsciously, in their writing.

Paste your text into the Gender Decoder and it will highlight the “linguistic gender-coding” that, research has shown, “puts many women off applying for jobs advertised with masculine-coded language”.

Words like ‘active’, ‘adventurous’, ‘confident’, dominant’, ‘impulsive’, ‘superior’, ‘self-confident’, ‘independent’ and dozens of others, it turns out, are often used in writing job descriptions and create an overall sense that a role has been intended for men.

A landmark 2011 research paper explored the strength of these associations and their effect on perceptions of written communications – and found that women interpreted jobs written with masculine coded language as being less appealing and that they didn’t belong in those occupations.

There are feminine-coded words, too – words like ‘compassion, ‘emotional’, ‘interpersonal, ‘pleasant’, ‘quiet’, ‘submissive’, ‘flatterable’, and ‘tender’.

By now, your blood is probably boiling as much as mine was.

No wonder employers are having so much trouble attracting women to cybersecurity jobs that would if they weren’t put off by the job description, suit them to a T.

This is just one scenario, and I could share many others.

I recall an answer one woman gave while sitting, a while back, in a mixed panel session about increasing the representation of women in security.

If I can’t tick 9 out of 10 requirements on a job spec I won’t even apply,” she said – compared to the male on the panel, who said “If I get to 3 I’m good.

Are we women our own worst enemies – setting our expectations too high and avoiding applying to jobs when we should just apply and see how we go?

Have we simply stepped back and allowed the market to skew towards men in roles that we want, on the stage that we should be on? Or is it, despite all the hope, truly a man’s world and we are just along for the ride?

Throw in a very real disconnect with the recruitment community – who often contact me completely unaware about whom they can reach out to within our community to talk about their roles – and it’s completely understandable why Australia’s cybersecurity community has struggled to access a pipeline of qualified candidates.

And that’s just the people entering the company – say nothing of the need to promote women vertically to add the invaluable voices of diversity to the way the company is positioned with stakeholders and customers.

Big change starts with small changes – and if your company is reaching out to fill up cybersecurity positions, I urge you to take the time to get the job specifications correct. Make sure that you focus on what the job involves, rather than using exclusive language that may prevent many otherwise talented applicants from even updating their CVs.

I don’t know all the answers, but I do know that if we start by being more self-aware – all of us, both recruiters and job-seekers – then we can make a great start towards a more inclusive world.

What do you think we can do to fix this situation?