Women Resource Guide for Employers

The goal of this guide is for employers to gain information to implement strategies for equitable hiring practices in efforts to further engage woman. It is intended to assist employers in expanding and supporting their candidacy pool to include and champion woman talent.


In the application phase of a full time or experiential learning roles, the student is submitting documentation of their work, education and leadership skills. Students work to polish the application documents to be packaged in an ambitious way. As an employer reviewing the material, the application needs to be considered objectively with regard to hard skills that have been obtained regardless of the assumed gender. By removing candidates name from application material, tasking the search committees with asking the same set of questions and challenge interactions with staff interviewing to be filtered by being applicable to all genders. These practices can lead to less conscious and unconscious bias in the initial phases of heiring.

Salary negotiation is where money is left on the table for woman at large over men in full time work internships and co ops. Additionally, woman are more likely to miss out on key assignments, promotions, and raises2. This is a place for you as an employer to support salary transparency among coworkers and teems and understand the uphill battle woman are fighting. In the book “Secrets of Six-Figure Women,” Barbara Stanny gives traits of “underearners,” or women who undervalue their earning potential. They include a high tolerance for low pay, a willingness to work for free and live in financial chaos, and a belief in the nobility of poverty 3. This experience many women face  can be improved on the employer’s behalf by offering salary based on documentation, experience, and accomplishments of all candidates rather than subjective information.


Tech students are aware of the discrepancies in the workplaces and industries for woman to out perform men for less money. Statically, men get offered a job when they meet 60% of the skills needed whereas women apply to and get the job when they meet 100% of the skills needed4. This shows up as a greater problem in the applicant pipeline and company representation of gender equity.  An employer can be proactive to this by having an authentic and realistic job description about the role.  Turning to compensation and woman, merit-based raises and performance bonuses are further perpetuated by the 60/100 statitic. With less equatable representation women performance are commonly understated; therefore, most women feel the need to work harder to demonstrate they are as capable as their male counterparts1. Required or suggested year of experience for example is an area when women will apply if they meet or excide the threshold where most men will be below and still consider applying. If an employer is looking to increase female talent, these statics should be considered in the job description and qualification for the role.

Talking about efforts to grow and maintain a supportive company, culture Georgia Tech students have expressed wanting autonomy over their appearance from the interview, to day one on the job, to major meetings and everyday looks. A study was done on “What it takes to n woman in the workplace and enable them to thrive” found 44% of women experiencing non-inclusive behaviors this year, and they remain commonplace and under-reported6. Having process with an anonymous option in place to report incidences can help employees feel heard an see actions to better the issue.


Taking notice of the female-identifying grievances from the Woman’s Resource Center on campus there is a theme of dress code standards to be equitable across all genders, ethnicities, and idealities. More specifically a desire to feel supported among the black and brown community in wearing their hair naturally, curly or died in interviews and at work. A study done by LinkedIn and Dove found that “Black women with coily/textured hair are two times as likely to experience microaggressions in the workplace than black women with straighter hair.”5 Instead, Tech students want to work in an environment where this is celebrated. Students that are obtaining an education lived though influential social movements and as a result are ininformed on their intersectional ideality and how it supported in the work place.  Women from under-represented groups report worse experiences in the workplace, including when it comes to experiencing non-inclusive behaviors 6.

The overarching theme for women-identifying students at Georgia Tech is that most are looking for an employer to support their identity is an equitable way. They are looking for an environment (in person or virtual) that is an ally of their identity and intersectionality.  For employers looking to empower woman and gender equity and take alternate approaches to attract and maintain a diverse talent pool creating and equitable hiring process, promoting a supportive company culture, and increasing non bias practices are the top recommendation for strategy from the employer connections team at Georgia Tech.


Women’s Resource Center–  A Georgia Tech resource for women offering programming and resources for women’s interests 

Women’s Innovation Lab – Scheller College of Business Georgia Tech


The information in this guide is sourced from top area of importancewoman identifying students that have a desired areas of support during co-ops, internshipss, or full-time rolesthrough the hiring process and within the company cuture. An acknowledgement that the data used to support the information and resources in this guide is largely gender binary and, unfortunately, not inclusive to all.

  1. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work.
  2. Madeline E. Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 3 (2004): 416–27; Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick, “Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women,” Journal of Social Issues 57, no. 4 (2001): 743–62; Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick, “Feminized Management and Backlash Toward Agentic Women: The Hidden Costs to Women of a Kinder, Gentler Image of Middle Managers,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, no. 5 (1999): 1004–10; Rudman, “Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women.”
  3. Kristin Wong NY Times. “A Woman’s Guide to Salary Negotiation”
  4. Tara Sophia Mohr, “Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualifed,” Harvard Business Review (HBR)
  5. Hair Discrimination Research: Dove 2023 CROWN Workplace Research Study
  6. Emma Codd, LinkedIn. “It’s 2023. What will it take to retain women in the workplace and enable them to thrive?”
Print Friendly, PDF & Email