[alehul]

Won't less aggressive language result in more applications from those who are less than 100% qualified, whether male or female?

I don't see where the article shows that men will apply at the same rate regardless of aggressive language.

[paxys]

What's wrong with having more applications from less qualified candidates? The point of the interview process is to filter them out. The goal of having inclusive language is to encourage qualified candidates, who otherwise wouldn't have, to apply.

[alehul]

As cited in the study, a common reason to not apply if under-qualified is 'to avoid wasting the time of the interviewer', and I think this is a likely reason.

The trade-off of less aggressive language resulting in both more applicants but also a higher percentage of under-qualified applicants will eventually reach some inflection point where it becomes unproductive, as you're almost certain to already have a well-qualified fit in the batch of interviewees.

[ictoan]

Men apply if they are 60% qualified and most women apply if they feel they are 100% qualified. Making the application description more female-friendly does not bring more under-qualified candidates. It brings those who doesn't feel as confident in their own ability but ARE qualified.

What you miss here is that men are often overconfident and women are under-confident. It has nothing to do with qualification. It has everything to do with confidence.

And yes, women are often less confident because tech is an industry often marketed for men.