Gender-Coded Words in Job Ads (and Fixes)
Gender-coded words in job ads quietly skew who applies. Here is a list of the worst offenders, the research behind them, and neutral words to use instead.
Gender-coded words in job ads are the kind of bias that hides in plain sight. No one writes "we prefer men" — but words like dominant, competitive, and ninja send roughly that signal, and the data shows fewer women apply as a result. The good news: this is one of the easiest hiring problems to fix, because it is purely a question of wording.
What the research actually found
The foundational study here is Gaucher, Friesen, and Kay (2011). They showed that job ads in male-dominated fields contained more masculine-coded language, and that when people read those ads, women found the roles less appealing and reported a weaker sense of belonging — even when they were equally qualified. The effect was driven by belonging, not perceived ability.
Two things are worth being precise about. First, masculine-coded wording reliably depresses female applications; the reverse effect of feminine-coded wording on men is weaker and less consistent. Second, individual words rarely matter on their own. It is the accumulation across a posting that shifts behaviour.
The words to watch for
Coded language clusters into two groups. You do not need to ban these words outright — you need to notice when they pile up.
- Masculine-coded: aggressive, dominant, competitive, decisive, fearless, driven, ninja, rockstar, guru, superhero, challenge, lead, individual, principle.
- Feminine-coded: collaborative, supportive, together, nurturing, committed, interpersonal, dependable, understanding, loyal, responsible.
- Age and culture proxies: young, energetic, digital native, recent graduate, fits our culture, fast-paced (when overused).
That last group is technically not gender coding, but it carries the same risk: it filters on identity instead of capability. Treat it the same way.
How to fix them without losing your voice
The goal is neutral, accurate language — not a posting scrubbed of all personality. Here is the practical approach.
- Describe the work, not a personality type. Replace "we need an aggressive closer" with "you will own the full sales cycle and hit a quarterly quota." The outcome is concrete and identity-neutral.
- Swap coded adjectives for behaviours. "Dominant leader" becomes "sets direction for a team of five." "Nurturing" becomes "mentors junior engineers through code review."
- Cut the hype nouns entirely. Nobody applies less because you dropped rockstar. Use the real job title.
- Balance, do not overcorrect. A posting that is now heavily feminine-coded has the same problem in reverse. Aim for neutral.
Write the job ad as if you were explaining the role to a smart friend over coffee. You would describe what they would do, not what kind of person they would have to be.
Why a tool beats a memorized word list
You can keep a list of coded words on a sticky note, and for one posting that works. Across an organisation it does not. Different managers write differently, lists go out of date, and the subtle thing — the cumulative balance of a whole posting — is genuinely hard to eyeball.
Talent Tick's JD optimizer scans for gender-coded words automatically, shows you where they cluster, and offers a one-click rewrite that keeps your tone intact. It flags the age and culture proxies too, plus jargon and a missing salary range. You decide what to accept; the tool just makes the invisible visible. Try it free for 21 days and see what your current postings have been quietly signalling.