Most skip it because they follow the posted rules, not because they doubt themselves. Here's what changes when you know the rules are soft.

Most of us have watched it happen: a man reads a job description, meets roughly half of it, and clicks apply, while a woman in the same position waits until she can check off every single line. The advice that comes next is familiar. Trust yourself. Stop holding out for a feeling of readiness. Apply anyway. It is offered kindly, and it has filled plenty of confidence workshops across the Richmond area and beyond.

The difficulty, put plainly, is this. Tara Mohr, writing for Harvard Business Review, put the question to women directly, asking why they let go of roles they considered beyond their reach, and fear of their own inadequacy was rarely the answer they gave. Most of them thought the listed requirements were binding and the hiring process was fair, so applying without the qualifications would only waste everyone's time.

A. Because the listing is phrased as a command, they take it as one.

Mohr's findings showed that women held back chiefly because they believed the requirements were genuine and the process was impartial. Calling this a confidence problem misses the point. What they're doing is a reasonable response to a page that announces "required" in bold, and in that sense these women were simply doing what the posting asked. Many of the men had worked out that the rules were looser than they looked. No one had told the women that the game ran differently from the printed version.

B. Their caution makes sense, since the consequences of bold moves land differently depending on who makes them.

This hesitation is a sensible response and not an exaggerated one. Studies of the likability penalty keep finding that an identical ask reads as confident when a man makes it and as aggressive when a woman does. A 2025 Women in the Workplace study by McKinsey and LeanIn found that women leaders are twice as likely to be taken for someone more junior. When your qualifications are scrutinized more closely, a résumé with a visible gap carries more risk for you than it would for a male colleague in Henrico or Chesterfield. Women are not misjudging the risk. They are weighing it accurately.

C. A job listing is really a first bid, and hiring managers understand that perfectly well.

Consider how organizations treat the listings they publish themselves. Requirements get set aside as soon as a strong internal candidate shows up. More and more states now require posted pay ranges, and the stated range is often wide enough to cover two very different jobs. The listing functions like a wish list with a budget attached. Treating it as a binding contract is an error, and it is one women were taught rather than one they chose.

Where the conventional counsel still applies

Sometimes you really are three years short of what a role demands, and no amount of reframing will change that. Once you understand the rules are soft, though, the instinct to apply anyway is sound. The usual confidence advice steers you toward the correct step. Its explanation is off, and that faulty explanation is what persuades women that the shortfall lies within them.

A better path forward

Study your next listing the way someone on the inside would read it. Divide every requirement into one of three piles: a genuine hard line, a stated preference presented as a hard line, or a phrase included simply as protection. If you meet the hard lines, apply. In your cover letter, Richmond hiring teams will appreciate it if you name the shortfall in one plain line first: "I haven't led a team of twenty yet. I've guided twelve people through a system migration, which is the piece of this role that most often goes wrong." That turns the requirement into a matter of fit, which is what it was always about.

Then pass on what you have learned to a younger woman on your team, because no one told you.

Think back: how many openings did you pass up simply because the listing seemed out of reach?