A mentoring session between an ambitious young woman working in the financial technology sector and her mentor recently brought to light a familiar yet persistent professional hurdle. The mentee, who has been steadily building a career in fintech for several years, mentioned almost in passing that she had decided against applying for a role she was genuinely interested in—a position the two had discussed enthusiastically only a couple of weeks earlier.
When asked why she had pulled out, she explained that she had carefully reviewed the job specification and counted the requirements she fulfilled. While she checked off a significant number of the boxes, she did not match every single one. Based on that gap, she made a definitive judgment that she simply was not ready for the challenge.
This encounter highlights a capable, experienced professional who, rather than putting herself forward and allowing a hiring manager to decide whether she was right for the position, chose to rule herself out entirely. When the mentor asked how many of those criteria the previous occupant of the role likely ticked, neither could give a definitive answer, though it was a safe bet that the predecessor had not possessed every single listed skill on day one.
This dynamic is far from isolated. It mirrors a widely circulated statistic frequently shared across professional networks regarding how most women apply for jobs only when they meet 100 percent of the listed qualifications, whereas men tend to apply when they hit around 60 percent. For years, the industry has shorthand this phenomenon as the "confidence gap," placing the onus squarely on female professionals to summon more self-assurance. However, new research published this year offers a profoundly different framework for understanding why this disparity persists, pointing the finger not just at personal confidence, but at systemic ambiguity and deeply ingrained workplace stereotypes.
What the Research Says
Insight into this behavioral pattern comes from recent work by Harvard Business School researcher Katherine Coffman, who has spent years studying how societal and industrial stereotypes shape the way women perceive their own capabilities and readiness for advancement.
Coffman’s findings demonstrate that even when men and women possess identical qualifications, women remain significantly less likely to apply for promotions. Crucially, her research suggests that a substantial portion of this confidence gap stems directly from stereotypes. While society often treats stereotypes as external biases held by others, Coffman’s work emphasizes that these cultural narratives quietly shape internal beliefs. If an industry has spent decades signaling through its demographics, leadership structures, and informal networks that high-finance and financial technology are male-dominated domains, it is hardly surprising that these subtle messages seep into the self-perception of capable women, even when their objective track records suggest otherwise.
Furthermore, this gap widens dramatically when organizational criteria are vague. The research shows that when the rules and requirements for a role or promotion are explicitly clear, women are much more likely to put themselves forward. However, when expectations are opaque, stereotypes rush in to fill the blanks, leading qualified candidates to rule themselves out.
Vague criteria often manifest in job advertisements asking for intangible traits like "strong commercial acumen" or "senior presence," or in internal promotion processes that vaguely require an employee to be "ready for the next level" without ever defining what that next level actually entails. Essentially, when ambitious professionals are left guessing what an employer truly desires or whether they meet unspoken thresholds, the resulting uncertainty triggers self-doubt.
Rethinking Solutions for the Fintech Sector
Addressing this challenge requires shared responsibility. Placing the entire burden on women to fix an environmental problem fails to recognize how surrounding workplace conditions continuously reinforce the exact behaviors professionals are trying to unlearn. Meaningful progress requires action from both female professionals navigating their careers and the founders and leaders shaping fintech organizations.
For women working in the industry, taking control of self-doubt often starts with neutralizing vague criteria. Rather than measuring personal capability against a hastily drafted job specification—which is frequently assembled under pressure or with the assistance of automated drafting tools—professionals can evaluate themselves against an objective record of their actual accomplishments. Maintaining a running inventory of significant milestones, complete with concrete metrics such as banking relationships established, transaction volumes managed, markets launched, or regulatory audits successfully navigated, provides an empirical anchor against internal self-doubt.
Similarly, professionals negotiating their remuneration, whether as consultants, freelancers, or salaried employees, benefit from defining their economic worth before entering negotiations rather than reacting in the moment under pressure. Recognizing the high-stakes nature of specialized fintech work—such as navigating high-risk payments and complex banking channels that determine whether a business can legally operate—helps professionals price their outcomes accurately. When a fair number is established and stated, allowing silence to sit rather than rushing to fill it with concessions is a vital part of the negotiation process.
Finally, treating job descriptions as strategic wish lists rather than absolute mandates remains essential. While requirements outline an ideal candidate, missing a few secondary skills rarely disqualifies an interested and capable applicant. Applying for roles driven by genuine interest and strong core competency ensures that any rejection comes from an employer’s deliberate choice rather than a preemptive self-elimination.
On the employer side, fintech founders and leaders hold substantial power to reshape the landscape. The most direct intervention is making career progression visible and transparent. Writing down promotion requirements in plain, unambiguous English removes the guesswork that disproportionately deters qualified internal candidates. Defining the exact proficiencies, operational experiences, and measurable achievements required to transition from one title to the next—such as moving from a compliance analyst to a manager—transforms abstract expectations into concrete goals.
Industry examples illustrate the power of this approach. Software firms that mapped out clear promotion pathways and made evaluation criteria fully transparent saw notable improvements in both employee professional development and retention.
Additionally, organizations can actively name the confidence gap at the precise moment it matters most: during performance reviews, internal hiring considerations, and within job advertisements. Research exploring the behavioral impact of discussing the confidence gap indicates that direct, timely encouragement can alter application patterns. When leaders explicitly inform their teams that industry research shows qualified women are statistically less likely to self-nominate for specific roles, and couple that observation with a direct invitation to apply, the resulting reassurance often bridges the divide.
As for the mentor’s mentee, she ultimately submitted her application for the fintech role. While the final hiring decision remains pending, the act of applying represents the most critical hurdle. Years of advising women simply to project more confidence have yielded limited systemic change. Perhaps the path forward relies less on demanding internal transformation from individuals and more on clarifying the rules of the game so that talent is recognized, welcomed, and allowed to advance.
