How bias, culture, and systems shape career trajectories—and what leaders can do to change them

The gender gap in tech has persisted for decades. Awareness has grown, but progress often feels slow. In an industry where less than a third of technical roles are held by women, the challenges begin long before the hiring process and extend far beyond it. Women are not failing; the system is.

The narrative often reads like a checklist: women are underrepresented, underpromoted, and leave the field. But what is less discussed is how much of that loss happens before a job offer is even made, and how much is shaped by the culture of belonging, or lack thereof, in the spaces they enter.

It is not about whether women belong, they know they do. The challenge lies in whether their colleagues, teams, and the structures around them see that too. Many women enter spaces where their presence is acknowledged in principle but questioned in practice. They must continually prove their worth, navigate microaggressions, and operate with the constant awareness that any small misstep can be magnified, while their male counterparts are often given the benefit of the doubt.

The Reality Beneath the Numbers

The statistics tell one story, but lived experiences tell another. Women leave tech at nearly twice the rate of men. Those who remain navigate skepticism, isolation, and unspoken bias, walking a narrow path where competence is always under scrutiny.

Behind every statistic is a story:

• A woman who walked into her first computer science class and realized she was the only one.

• A developer whose ideas were ignored until echoed by a male colleague.

• An engineer who left not because she could not code, but because she grew tired of continually proving her worth.

Online threads reflect this sentiment:

When Aline Lerner at interviewing.io analyzed interview data, she found a stark disparity in persistence between genders. After one failed interview, women were seven times more likely to quit the platform than men; after two, three times more likely. This suggests that women’s early experiences with rejection, whether in interviews or early projects, disproportionately impact their confidence and willingness to re-engage, while men are often given the benefit of the doubt, seeing mistakes as learning moments.

For women, it is rarely about their ability. It is about climate, the constant pressure to demonstrate belonging in spaces that still default to male. Engineers of any gender who have felt imposter syndrome, been doubted, or misunderstood can relate to isolation, but for women, the stakes are higher and cumulative. They must not only perform, but anticipate how others perceive their performance.

The Unspoken Test

From the first technical course to the first interview, many women describe feeling observed, measured, and evaluated on far more than just code.

Under pressure, performance doesn’t always reflect ability, but evaluation systems often treat mistakes as final verdicts rather than learning moments. These small frictions add up. Over time, women internalize the message that any error, no matter how small, could jeopardize their standing, whereas male colleagues often receive guidance or a second chance. This inequity makes repeated proof-of-worth exhausting and constant, rather than occasional.

Imagine being in a room where your every move is scrutinized differently from others, and your missteps are treated as evidence of incapability rather than normal learning. This is not about doubting oneself. It is about how the rest of the team perceives and values your presence. Many men can relate to moments of scrutiny when “rocking the boat,” but the intensity and frequency of these expectations are not equal.

Building a Framework for Inclusive Interviewing

The evidence from interviewing.io makes one thing clear: the disparity is not about ability. It is about how the system reacts to mistakes and what candidates are allowed to recover from. Interviews that prioritize pressure over persistence filter out capable candidates long before their full potential is visible.

Some of the most effective adjustments include:

• Multiple Touchpoints: Give candidates several opportunities to showcase skills across different formats, such as collaborative tasks, pairing sessions, or problem-solving discussions. This reduces the weight of a single performance and allows different strengths to shine.

• Clear Feedback and Mentorship: Transparent guidance about what went wrong and how to improve providing opportunities for improvement. Structured feedback reassures candidates that mistakes are part of learning, not a verdict on their entire potential.

• Cultural Awareness: Train interviewers to recognize nerves, self-doubt, and structural biases so that minor missteps are not disproportionately penalized.

• Long-Term Perspective: Think beyond immediate hires. Build pipelines that support continuous growth and retention.

Implementing these systems signals to all candidates, but especially women, that persistence, learning, and growth are valued as much as immediate perfection.

What We Measure and What We Miss

Even when women reach the room, evaluation is not always equal. Subtle biases influence how competency is judged. Women are often assessed on confidence, communication, or “fit,” while men are judged on technical output.

Studies show identical resumes receive different evaluations depending on gender, with women consistently rated lower for competence and hireability. Moss-Racusin et al., 2012, PNAS

Bias is not always loud. It hides in feedback loops, debriefs, and cultural assumptions of what “strong candidates” look like. This creates a persistent gap in opportunity. At the same time, men who recognize these imbalances can act as allies: mentoring, amplifying, and advocating for women ensures that talent is recognized rather than sidelined. Inclusion is not a zero-sum game, it strengthens teams, products, and culture for everyone.

Engineering Inclusion

Change is not another checklist of inclusive practices. It is reshaping the culture around them so inclusion becomes the norm not the initiative.

At Ardan Labs, our leadership models this mindset. Our Managing Partner and Lead Go Instructor, Bill Kennedy, founded GoBridge to empower underrepresented communities through technical education. Through partnering with initiatives like Women Who Go, he supports mentorship, community, and professional growth. These types of initiatives are examples of how community-led collaboration can help more engineers access opportunity, confidence, and connection. But inclusion is bigger than one person, it requires active participation from everyone on a team.

Inside companies, this translates to designing interviews that teach as much as they test, creating feedback loops that encourage growth, and training managers to recognize potential and amplify it, rather than filtering it prematurely. True equity is not a hiring initiative. it is a cultural transformation that benefits men and women alike. When done right, early failures become stepping stones instead of exit points.

A Tech Culture Where Everyone Thrives

The question is not whether women can succeed in tech, they already do. The question is whether our systems are designed to let them. Inclusion is evolution, not charity. It is how teams grow stronger, products become smarter, and ideas reflect the world they are meant to serve.

At Ardan Labs, we build environments that value mentorship, diversity, and belonging. Through partnerships with communities like GoBridge and a commitment to inclusive teaching and hiring, every engineer, regardless of gender, has the chance to build, lead, and thrive.

Join a team that values your talent and potential. Explore our open roles at Ardan Labs and help create a future where every developer can enter a room and be seen, valued, and empowered to do their best work.

Because the next generation of developers deserves to walk into rooms that finally look like the world they are building for.