UK's Job Ad Language Guidance: A Distraction from Real Gender Barriers

The government's newly created Office for Equality and Opportunity has issued guidance urging British businesses to scrub words like "ambitious", "competitive" and "entrepreneurial" from job advertisements. The reasoning? Such language is supposedly too masculine and might discourage women from applying. One could be forgiven for wondering whether the women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson — who leads this new office — received the memo about her own career trajectory.

Phillipson, after all, contested Labour's deputy leadership election and is regularly named in Westminster circles as a future leadership contender. She appears to have managed quite well despite presumably encountering these allegedly off-putting words throughout her political ascent. The irony is difficult to ignore.

The guidance, part of Labour's equality agenda, recommends replacing "stereotypically masculine" terminology with more neutral or "feminine-coded" alternatives. Terms flagged as potentially problematic include "dominant", "independent", "strong" and "leader" alongside the aforementioned trio. According to the department, this linguistic shift would help remove "invisible barriers" in recruitment, particularly for mid-to-senior management positions.

Enjoying this article?

Get stories like this in your inbox every week.

Join the Community

The evidence problem

Research into gendered language in job advertisements does exist, primarily stemming from studies showing correlations between certain word choices and application rates. A 2011 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that job postings with more masculine-worded descriptions appealed less to women, though the researchers acknowledged the complexity of isolating language from other variables.

What the research hasn't definitively established is whether changing these words actually results in better hiring outcomes or workplace equality. Correlation between word choice and application rates doesn't necessarily prove that women are inherently put off by ambition or competitiveness — it might simply reflect existing industry demographics or company cultures that the language accurately signals.

If we accept the premise that women need protecting from aspirational vocabulary, what message does that send about women's capacity for leadership, risk-taking or competitive drive?

The business community has responded with predictable wariness. Recruitment professionals point out that they're already navigating increasingly complex compliance requirements around hiring practices. Adding linguistic policing to that burden — particularly when the evidence base remains contested — strikes many as regulatory overreach that addresses symptoms rather than causes.

What actually holds women back

The gender imbalance in senior positions is real and persistent. According to the FTSE Women Leaders Review, women held just 40.2 per cent of FTSE 100 board positions as of early 2024 — progress from previous years, but hardly parity. In venture capital and private equity, the numbers are bleaker still. Research from Extend Ventures found that all-female founding teams received just 2 per cent of UK venture capital funding in 2023.

But the barriers aren't primarily linguistic. Women cite inflexible working arrangements, lack of affordable childcare, unequal parental leave policies, and persistent pay gaps as the substantive obstacles to career progression. A 2023 survey from the Chartered Management Institute found that female managers earned on average £10,934 less than their male counterparts, with the gap widening at senior levels. Those are structural issues requiring structural solutions — investment, policy changes, enforcement of existing equality legislation.

Telling businesses to swap "ambitious" for "collaborative" doesn't address structural barriers. It risks reducing equality work to box-ticking exercises that allow organisations to claim progress whilst avoiding harder, costlier reforms.

What's interesting here is the displacement activity. The government faces considerable criticism over its approach to business taxation and regulation, with organisations from the CBI to the Federation of Small Businesses warning that increased national insurance contributions and regulatory compliance costs are constraining hiring capacity. When businesses can't afford to recruit at all, the precise wording of job advertisements becomes rather academic.

The talent question

The stated aim of this guidance is ostensibly to help businesses access a wider talent pool. Yet founders and hiring managers consistently report that their challenge isn't getting women to apply — it's creating workplaces where they can advance and remain. Retention and progression matter more than application semantics.

Several recruitment technology firms already use software to analyse job descriptions for potentially biased language, and some evidence suggests this can marginally increase application diversity. But these are tools companies can choose to deploy, not government mandates about acceptable vocabulary. The distinction matters in a business environment already stretched thin by compliance requirements.

There's also an uncomfortable question about what "feminine-coded" language actually means. The terms suggested as alternatives to "ambitious" or "competitive" — words like "collaborative", "supportive" or "dedicated" — rest on essentialist assumptions about gender that many would consider outdated. Why should collaboration be coded feminine and competition masculine? The framing itself reinforces the stereotypes it purports to challenge.

Phillipson insists the guidance will help ensure women "thrive at work". But thriving requires opportunity, equal pay, flexibility and advancement prospects — not sanitised job descriptions. As Labour's equality agenda develops, the test will be whether it tackles those substantive issues or gets distracted by linguistic window-dressing. The former requires political capital and Treasury funding. The latter just requires a memo.

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute professional advice.

More articles by Ross Williams