February 7, 2021 by Grace Battles
I am a stress-case, an over-preparer and a perfectionist. Though I am sure many can relate, I feel like I even take over-preparing to another level.
Last year, I methodically studied a tattered, white 3-ringed binder containing 200 potential technical interview questions in preparation for internship interviews. The binder was lovingly nicknamed “The Binder of Doom.” I even made an Excel sheet to track how many times I practiced each question — it was color coded and everything.
Technical interview questions are designed to evaluate hard skills. For my interviews, technicals specifically tested finance, accounting or math skills; all subjects that I love, but struggled demonstrating on the spot or in my head. After six months of practicing technicals and eventually interviewing a few times, I was at a loss as to why I kept getting rejected and, more commonly, ignored all together.
Losing contact after interviews seems to be the norm, so receiving feedback is definitely rare. However, I did receive feedback from one firm regarding why I was not selected for their internship program. Their explanation was vague, but I was essentially told that I was just “not technical enough.”
Atop my pile of rejections, the comment left me feeling unfit for the position’s rigor — I felt like I was not smart enough. Despite how hard I worked and it being my dream to enter this industry, I was close to giving up all together.
I had one last opportunity to interview before my window in the recruiting cycle closed. During the final round, I completely botched a technical question and panicked. Thankfully, I shook it off and even chuckled about how awesome Excel is with my interviewer (turns out he was also bad at doing math in his head).
I got an offer from this company two days later, and the interviewer who shared my love of Excel was on the team that extended me the offer. I can’t know the exact reasons I was hired but, nevertheless, it is interesting to me that technical mishaps may have helped me land this internship, but cost me offers for others. Being able to ask questions about, accept and even laugh at my mistake revealed more about my character than my intelligence.
I was lucky to come across a company that recognized my strengths — even if they were not strictly technical — but that is a hard thing to find. Why are interns and undergraduates interviewed for their first jobs with an assumption that they should already have solid technical knowledge?
When we take a class in a new subject, we are not expected to already understand the basics; instead, we are taught the basics. All skills are learned, not inherently possessed. There is no doubt that a level of practical, technical knowledge relating to a role is necessary. But at the entry level, more emphasis should be placed on the ability to learn the skills needed on the job, not prior expertise.
I have heard similar stories from various professionals across industries, and these remarks (i.e. saying an intern is “not technical enough”) can be damaging no matter who is on the receiving end. However, they are especially harmful in recruiting for entry level roles, and they also seem to be disproportionately directed toward women.
Scrutinizing women for their technical abilities is just one example of many common discriminatory hiring practices. Another heavily researched example is known as “Prove-it-Again” bias, where men tend to be assessed based on their potential, but women must continuously prove themselves because they are assessed based on their track records. These differing standards reinforce barriers that already block women from entering certain industries.
If you tell someone that they lack prerequisite skills for an industry they have not yet entered, that person is led to believe that they cannot succeed. This is true independent of gender identity, but holds especially true for women. Women additionally face what author Stephen Hinshaw calls “the Triple Bind,” where “girls are now expected to excel at ‘girl skills,’ achieve ‘boy goals,’ and be models of female perfection, 100 percent of the time.” So when young women hear these discouraging comments, it is easy for them to turn to damaging self-talk as a result of not meeting the bar of perfection, thinking “I messed up,” “I failed” or “I do not deserve this.”
People tend not enter to fields where they do not see themselves represented. David Miller, Alice Eagly and Marcia Lynn confirmed in their research that enrollment in STEM is heavily influenced by gender stereotypes. Science, technology, mathematics and engineering (STEM) are inherently “technical” fields and stereotypically male-dominated. Therefore, when women in STEM commonly hear that they lack technical skills, the stereotype is amplified, barriers to enter the industry are reinforced and the lack of representation continues.
“The Pipeline Problem” hypothesizes that the corporate world’s lack of representation is attributed to fewer women, Black and Indigenous people of color (BIPOC) and LBGTQ+ folks applying for roles in the first place. But it is clear that the issue runs much deeper than just applicant pools.
Studies conducted by Catalyst concluded that, “among STEM graduates, men were more likely (41.5 percent) to work in STEM jobs than women (22.5 percent).” Yet still, research has shown that women tend to outperform men in university among STEM-related majors like physical and life sciences. Independent of applicant pools, the technical abilities of women in STEM have been shown to outperform men during college. Women in STEM, however, are still deemed “not technical enough” and dissuaded from pursuing related careers.
It is hard to actively seek a career where you do not seem to be wanted for the skills you do have and are rejected for those you don't. The unrealistic bar of perfection and discriminatory standards placed on women ought to be readjusted. Women should be encouraged to develop their own, unique skills to take into leadership roles. This can only happen if recruiting teams reframe hiring standards.
When women constantly internalize pressures to prove their abilities without any mistakes in the workplace, they can become so consumed with worrying about messing up that they do not focus on learning, or learning from their mess-ups. It can also cause women to be passive and fearful to speak up, despite having valuable contributions. This restricting atmosphere can pressure women to abandon their unique leadership strengths altogether and adopt more traditionally masculine ones which stereotypically tend to be associated with “leadership,” such as with the idea of technical ability.
Not everyone is good at doing math in their head and not everyone is good at working through mistakes in a high-pressure environment, but those individuals are equally valuable. Different ways of thinking make companies stronger. Technical skills are undeniably important, but they should not be expected right out of the gate. Hiring teams ought to provide in-depth, constructive feedback as well as prioritize soft skills, a growth mindset, and the ability to learn.
The workplace will not be pushed forward if we try to just fit the mold of what already is being done. It will be pushed forward when all women are enabled to let go of perfection, encouraged to fail and empowered to harness what it is that makes them uniquely brilliant.