“By moving beyond the ‘default male’ and choosing inclusive language in job ads, we open doors to a wider, more diverse pool of talent”
This article uses masculine- and feminine-coded language to highlight how job advertisements reinforce workplace inequality between men and women. While this focus is used for clarity, it is not meant to diminish the identities and experiences of people of other genders, whose voices are equally vital to conversations on equity and inclusion.
Gender inequality in the workplace manifests in many ways. It is evident in the gender pay gap, the underrepresentation of women in C-suite positions, and the limited presence of women in traditionally male-dominated fields such as engineering and finance. Decades of research have shown that gender inequality is shaped by a myriad of structural, cultural, and psychological factors. These factors such as the “glass ceiling,” the “motherhood penalty,” gender stereotypes, and hiring biases, will continue to perpetuate gender inequality unless we continue to talk about and do something about it. But what is more concerning would be factors that we may not be unaware of due simply because we do not realize the harm it may cause.
Ambitious, assertive, dominant, competitive, individualistic. These are words that suggest achievement and authority; words tied to independence, assertiveness; agentic traits traditionally associated with men in leadership roles. On the other side of the coin, there’s supportive, nurturing, collaborative; words that signal being relationship-focused; communal traits associated with women. These stereotypes don’t just shape how we describe male and female leaders; they also seep into hiring biases. I’m not just talking about biases in screening. Bias can start much earlier, in the very language used in job descriptions—shaping how opportunities are perceived and pursued.
In the 2011 four-phase study of Gaucher, Friesen, and Kay where they examined over 4,000 job advertisements, they found that job advertisements for male-dominated occupations contained significantly more masculine-coded words (e.g., leader, ambitious, dominant, competitive) than those for female-dominated ones. On the other hand, feminine-coded words (e.g., supportive, understanding, compassionate, interpersonal) appeared equally across fields. In the experiment they conducted, results showed that masculine wording reduced women’s sense of belongingness and made jobs less appealing. In other words, they are more likely to get discouraged to apply for the job. This finding is corroborated by a more recent study by He and Kang in 2025. The study tested whether replacing masculine-coded words in job postings with gender-neutral synonyms could broaden applicant pools. They found that in both lab and field settings, the intervention increased applications not only from women but also from men who were less aligned with traditional masculine norms.
I did a quick scan of job postings from Philippine companies. Of course, this was more of a surface check than the kind of rigorous studies I’ve cited earlier, but even at a glance the pattern is noticeable. For instance, one senior finance role leaned heavily on masculine-coded language, using phrases like “track record of successfully raising significant capital,” “direct experience leading a company through major transitions,” and “Exceptional leadership skills with the ability to communicate a compelling financial vision.” On the surface, these sound like common requirements we often see in job advertisements, but their familiarity is precisely what makes them powerful and often overlooked. There are many studies that suggest that words such as “track record,” “significant,” “direct,” “leading,” and “exceptional” are agentic, signaling authority, achievement, and dominance. What may seem routine and accurate to the role can, in practice, reinforce stereotypes and unintentionally discourage women from applying.
The pattern across job postings reflects what scholars call the “default male”—the assumption that the ideal worker or leader is male, and that traits coded as masculine as the standard. This default seeps into everyday practices, often invisibly, and reinforces structural barriers for women and other genders.
So, what can we do? One clear step is to become more intentional with language. That means going beyond gender-neutral greetings, like changing “Hey guys” to “Hey folks.” Organizations can audit their job postings to identify masculine-coded or feminine-coded words and replace them with neutral, inclusive alternatives. Instead of “track record,” we can say “proven experience.” Instead of “direct,” we can say “practical” or “applied.” Instead of “exceptional,” we can say “effective” or “strong.” Instead of “leading,” we can say “guiding” or “supporting.” Instead of “significant,” we can say “substantial” or “notable.” These small shifts matter because they change who sees themselves in the role and who feels encouraged to apply.
Words shape who feels welcome and who holds back. By moving beyond the “default male” and choosing inclusive language in job ads, we open doors to a wider, more diverse pool of talent—a step toward ensuring that everyone has a seat at the table.
Dr. Jessica Jaye Ranieses is an Associate Professor in the Department of Decision Sciences and Innovation at De La Salle University and the President of the Philippine Academy of Management. She can be contacted at jessica.ranieses@dlsu.edu.ph and often shares her personal reflections on teaching, research, and work at www.shewhoteaches.blog.
The perspectives shared in this piece are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the official views of De La Salle University, its faculty, or its administration.
