1 Introduction

Thanks to the recent proliferation of various online social networking sites (SNSs), users now have an unparalleled opportunity to express themselves, share information, and interact with one another. SNSs allow users to share information about themselves through a self-created online profile. There is no doubt that SNSs are used as a form of self-presentation (e.g., 8, 29, 42, 45, 52]). The main goal of self-presentation is to consciously or unconsciously influence the impressions of other people with the use of controlling information [19], such as interests, life information, photos and videos and present them in an appropriate way in social media.

Self-presentation is not only a fundamental fact of organizational life, but self-presentation techniques are also considered to be essential for job growth in a professional setting (e.g., [2, 6, 47]). Of special interest in a world that seeks to be gender-inclusive is how men and women present themselves on SNSs, especially in light of research that suggests that such gender differences in self-presentation on SNSs can impact significant work outcomes [53]. This study thus investigates gender differences on LinkedIn profiles on self-promotion, agency/communion-related self-descriptors, and emotional expressivity in portraits, among recent MBA graduates. Such information would aid researchers in understanding the gendered presentation in SNSs. Practitioners too will benefit from such evidence and formulate more gender-neutral criteria when searching profiles using SNSs.

1.1 LinkedIn and gender differences

Of the popular SNSs, LinkedIn is by far the most preferred one for recruitment [26, 31, 34, 40]. Executives from nearly every Fortune 500 company use LinkedIn due to factors such as ease of access to information, usefulness, and cost. LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional networking site, where job seekers can post their CVs, and employers or recruiters can post job openings and search for potential candidates. It is hugely popular in India (99 million), second only to the U.S. (200 million users) [14].

A LinkedIn profile has a number of sections, a portrait (picture), an ‘about me’ section, education, work experience, volunteer experience, skills and endorsements, accomplishments (such as awards and honors), that introduce the profile holder to the hirers and recruiters. The available research, although scanty, does suggest a difference in how men and women present these various sections. For instance, women have been found to under-promote in their ‘about’ summaries as compared to men, typically writing shorter profile summaries [37] or forgoing them altogether [4]. They are also are less likely to ask for referrals, which is considered an indicator of quality for hirers [37]. In a study done in the United States, Zide, Elman and Shahani-Denning [62] analyzed 300 LinkedIn users’ profiles based on industry and gender. They found that males were not only more likely to give recommendations of others than females, but also were more likely to have recommendations made of them, and also post personal information than females.

This raises an extremely pertinent question: is there an inherent problem in the way women present themselves on LinkedIn? Are the language choices of women self-handicapping? Not just the language used, even the photograph, especially of a woman candidate, has been found to have a significant impact on evaluations of hireability (e.g., [3]). The portrait chosen on LinkedIn could also have similar gendered effects.

What’s even more important than the users’ self-presentation choices are perhaps the perceptions of the recruiters when accessing profiles online. Rather damagingly, LinkedIn in their analysis from its 610 million users from 200 countries found that recruiters were 13% more likely to click on men’s profile when it shows up in search. India has one of the highest gender gaps in listing skills on LinkedIn, with men listing 3 more than women on average [37]. As a result, women may be at a disadvantage when applying for jobs since recruiters may miss them when using targeted keywords to scan LinkedIn profile pages.

While there are several benefits of using SNSs for recruitment (e.g., [33]), it is also fraught with issues such as privacy, discrimination, lack of reliability, and demographic biases stemming from internet availability, education, and general privilege [5, 25]. The age of the job seeker has also been found to impact impression management on their LinkedIn profiles, with older job seekers receiving fewer job offers than their younger counterparts [35]. Despite the popularity in the usage of SNSs, empirical studies investigating the validity and the potential utility of data from SNSs like LinkedIn remains limited and mixed (e.g., [1, 58, 61]. For instance, although Roulin and Levashina [46] found that hiring recommendations based on LinkedIn assessments had acceptable reliability and were positively associated with several career success indicators, they acknowledged that profiles that were longer, included a picture, and had more connections were rated more positively. Factors such as the candidate’s professional network, profile picture and recommendations indeed influence hiring professionals [7, 50], resulting in selection biases even before the first interview. More studies are undoubtedly needed to understand how men and women job seekers present themselves on LinkedIn, especially in the Indian context, as India has the second largest number of LinkedIn users in the world. Jones and Pittman [32] proposed that individuals typically use five self-presentation tactics: self-promotion, ingratiation, supplication, intimidation and exemplification. The present study focuses on self-promotion.

1.2 Self-promotion

Self-promotion is the act of highlighting one’s abilities or accomplishments in order to be seen as competent by others [32]. Past research has noted a persistent gender gap in self-promotion (e.g., [17]). While men consistently self-promote their successes to present a successful self-image, women are more modest than men in pointing out their achievements, known as the ‘feminine modesty effect’ [21]. According to Gould and Slone [21], to be judged positively by others in achievement contexts, women relative to men, must conform to sex-role expectations that dictate expressions of ‘feminine modesty’. Women often underrepresent their achievements in presence of others to avoid being judged unfeminine [10]. Rudman [47] also found that people who behave in a manner inconsistent with gender norms often suffer interpersonal consequences. Indeed, there is some evidence that recruiters are more reluctant to interview and hire a female applicant when she self-promotes [59]. Thus, women might find themselves in a double bind or in a self-promotion paradox: If they self-promote, they are violating gender norms and might experience backlash; if they do not self-promote, they might not convey their qualifications.

This may be understood in the context of gender role theory proposed by Eagly [15]. She proposed that people have a tendency to act in accordance with their gender roles. While men’s historical roles as family providers was frequently in occupations requiring physical prowess, assertiveness, or leadership, the traditional feminine gender role, in contrast, included communal elements such as emphasis on interpersonal relationships. The role congruity theory [16] posits that those who exhibit characteristics stereotypical of their gender are viewed more favorably than those who exhibit characteristics that contradict gender norms.

In keeping with this tendency to behave according to gender congruent roles, men and women differ in their self-presentation in resumes as well as on SNSs. For instance, He and Kang [27] found that job seekers downplayed gender incongruence by removing gender-incongruent hobbies or extracurriculars, describing themselves with less gender-incongruent language, and even altering their name. Many women also indicated that they made their job applications less feminine when they applied for male-dominated jobs. The gendered tendency to self-promote seems to be carried over in LinkedIn profiles as well (e.g., [4]). Literature on gender differences in the number of awards and honors, number of skills as well as the length of ‘about’ section on LinkedIn profiles is scant, albeit an important and understudied self-promotion field, worthy of investigation.

1.3 Agency and communion

A fundamental orientation pervasive in persons’ social cognitions is that of agency and communion [60]. While agency refers to the accomplishment of goals and task performance, communion refers to preservation of relationships and belongingness. In keeping with sex role socialization, men are depicted using agentic content, like competent, assertive, and ambitious, whereas women’s descriptions contain communal information, such as compassionate, understanding, trustworthy, and helpful. Further, agentic content is associated with high status, while communal content associated with women is related to low status. Worse, when women’s resumes communicate an identity that violates gender stereotypic prescriptions, i.e., agentic rather than communal identity, men evaluate them more negatively [57].

In a study examining gender differences in applications submitted to Teach for America (TFA) by Streib et al. [54], they did not find significant differences on aspects like reasons for applying, extracurricular activities and writing errors. They also found that while men and women presented themselves as agentic and knowledgeable nearly equally, women depicted themselves as emotional and relational much more frequently than did men.

With the exception of one study [9] that created fictitious LinkedIn summaries using agentic or communal content dimensions to assess judgement of HR professionals, research examining these categories in LinkedIn professional profiles is conspicuous by its absence. The ‘About Me’ summary section of LinkedIn profiles gives candidates an opportunity to emphasize important aspects of their professional image to attract the attention of the recruiter. The use of language in line with traditional male and female stereotypes may also lead to bias in recruitment.

1.4 Emotional expressivity in pictures

The implicit data conveyed through users’ profiles can be as important as the aforementioned explicit information. One of the most crucial sources of implicit data is the profile picture users choose to represent themselves (e.g., [23]). The emotional expressivity conveyed by such profile pictures is an important implicit non-verbal impression management cue.

Scholars have suggested that women will have a higher amount of emotional expressivity, as compared to men, in their profile pictures. For instance, Tifferet and Vilnai-Yavetz [56] explored gender differences in LinkedIn portraits using data from public online profiles They found that men were more likely to use status signals such as formal attire and premium accounts. Further, women displayed more emotional expressivity, such as head canting, eye contact, and smiling. Based on an experimental study, Sczesny and Kaufmann [49] reported that women tended to create a likable impression with their photograph more often than men, and men tended to use their size and strength to influence people (intimidation) more than women.

The evolutionary perspective, which suggests that evolutionary pressures have made women more emotionally expressive than men, may be used to explain these discrepancies. Although smiling conveys friendliness and openness, it can also be a sign of submissiveness in primates [13]. Therefore, it stands to reason that evolutionary path of men will favor a reluctance to smile. Indeed, it has been discovered that broad smiles in men lowers their ‘perceived competence’ [59] and ‘social status’ [11]. Head canting, while signaling emotional expressivity, may also thus be seen as a sign of ‘low status and submissiveness’ [24]. Interestingly, when women display positive emotional expressions, they are rated to be of a higher social status, while it works the opposite for men, who risk ratings of low social status [11]. The study of LinkedIn portraits of men and women as communicating conveying emotional expressivity thus becomes crucial.

1.5 The current study

The current study is a small, first step forward in understanding how presentation of jobseekers on LinkedIn is affected by their gender. In doing so, the present study seeks to fulfil the existing gap in literature in the following ways. First, much of the research continues to be in the Western context, and the findings may not be generalizable to the rest of the world. The importance given to self-presentation tactics is greater in cultures that emphasize mastery, hierarchies and income inequalities. Second, instead of extant literature that has examined gender differences on resumes, the current study assesses profiles of actual users on LinkedIn, an extremely popular and relevant form of recruitment in contemporary times, a hitherto ignored area of research.

We thus examine gender differences on self-presentation on LinkedIn along three important aspects of profiles, self-promotion metrics (operationalized as the length of the ‘about’ section, number of skills, and number of awards and honours listed), agentic and communion themes, which refer to the number of agentic and communion words listed in the ‘about’ section of profiles, and emotional expressivity (which refers to whether the portrait displays head canting, eye contact, and a full smile, defined as an open-mouthed smile) as seen in the user portraits.

Since we expected that there will be a difference between men and women on self-promotion, we hypothesized that (H1a) there will be a significant difference in the number of skills listed by men and women on their LinkedIn profiles. We also hypothesized (H1b) that there will be a significant difference in the summary length of the LinkedIn ‘about me’ summaries of men and women. We also hypothesized (H1C) that there will be a significant difference in the number of accomplishments/awards mentioned by men and women on their LinkedIn profiles.

Second, it was expected that men would present themselves using more agentic words in their LinkedIn summaries, whereas women would present themselves using more communal words, to increase their chances of getting hired by prescribing to gender-appropriate norms. We therefore hypothesized (H2a) that there will be a significant difference in the number of agentic words used by men and women in their ‘about me’ summaries on LinkedIn. At the same time, there will a significant difference in the number of communion words used by men and women in their ‘about me’ summaries on LinkedIn (Hypothesis 2b).

Last, we propose that men will be significantly different on emotional expressivity than their women counterparts in their portraits on LinkedIn. More specifically, we hypothesize that there will be a significant difference in eye contact of men and women in their LinkedIn portraits (H3a), there will be a significant difference in smiling in the LinkedIn portraits of men and women (H3b), and there will be a significant difference in head canting in the LinkedIn portraits of men and women (H3c).

2 Method

2.1 Design

The present research follows a quasi-experimental design that attempts to estimate a causal relationship between an independent variable and dependent variable, by assigning subjects to groups based on non-random criteria. The present study incorporates gender as the ‘treatment’ condition [4], matching subjects on categories such as MBA graduation year, institute from where MBA was done, current industry, and geographic location. Accordingly, LinkedIn’s filters were used to access profiles of users who graduated from IIM Ahmedabad, IIM Bangalore, IIM Calcutta, IIM Kozhikode, Department of Management Studies- IIT Delhi, IIM Indore, IIM Lucknow, Xavier Labour Relations Institute, Vinod Gupta School of Management (IIT Kharagpur), and MDI Gurgaon. These colleges were listed as the top 10 MBA institutes in India as per the National Institutional Ranking Framework [41] and were chosen to account for institute-level heterogeneous effects in developing online professional presence. For current industry and geographic location, only users working in ‘Management Consulting’ in Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat were included. In addition, we used the end year of the MBA degree as the year of graduation from the MBA program. Since recent MBA graduates are likely to have a stronger impetus to update their LinkedIn profiles for networking and job-seeking, profiles of users who graduated after 2015 were selected. Since LinkedIn users are not required to provide their gender explicitly, male and female profiles were selected on the basis of the internally predicted gender labels provided by LinkedIn. To ensure ecological validity, we relied on LinkedIn algorithms to find profiles. As a consequence, only profiles visible publicly were included in the study.

2.2 Procedure and sample

All procedures outlining the principles of research were in accordance with the formal ethical standards of Lady Shri Ram College for Women. The research protocol for the study was approved by The Psychology Research Review Committee from Lady Shri Ram College for Women.

In addition to controlling for covariates through matching, certain other control measures were implemented. Since active users and job seekers are more likely to update their profiles, only users that showed activity in less than or equal to 1 month were selected. Age was controlled, by including only those over 45 years, since the tendency to search for new jobs wanes as one grows older. Furthermore, only profiles with a picture and ‘about me’ summary section were included in the study, since these variables were to be analyzed later. Approximately equal number of men and women profiles who qualified to the requirements set forth were included.

The sample of the study consisted of LinkedIn users who stated themselves as MBA graduates, graduated after 2015 from the top ten MBA institutes of India, working in Management Consulting. About 800–1000 profiles were drawn from a pool of public profiles available on LinkedIn. After applying additional controls described above, the final sample comprised of 669 users, 337 men and 332 women.

2.3 Measures

Self-promotion. For the self-promotion metrics, we examined the length of the ‘about’ section, number of skills, and number of awards and honors in the listed profiles. Altenburger et al. [4] suggested that utilization of a particular profile section by the user, including ‘About Me’ section, Skills fields, and Awards field require extra effort and time to complete, and therefore imply greater self-promotion. One of the first parts on a user’s profile is called ‘About Me’ summary and it gives users open-ended space to describe themselves. It could range from one sentence describing their objective or 2000 characters where users give an overview of their professional life or even personal stories. We thus counted the number of words a user has written in the ‘About me’ section as a measure of self-promotion. The Honors field enables the user to enter any accomplishments they choose to. For both ‘Skills’ and ‘Awards and Honors’ fields, we considered whether a user has provided any information, and if so, the number of entries. If either the award or skills were not mentioned, it was treated as zero.

Agentic and communion themes. In the present study, we counted the number of agentic and communal words listed in the ‘about me’ summary on profiles of users. The classification of words as agentic/communal was taken from the dictionary of Agentic/Communion Words, developed by Pietraszkiewicz et al. [43]. Agentic words include goal achievement and task functioning terms, whereas communal words include relationship maintaining and social functioning terms. The validity of the Agency and Communion dictionaries was established by Pietraszkiewicz et al. [43] using frequency-based analyses, semantic similarity measures and subjective ratings. To further ensure inter-rater reliability in the present study, ten independent raters (undergraduate students of psychology) were asked to verify the classification of words, and only those which had 75% agreement were counted for subsequent analyses.

Emotional expressivity. The measures of emotional expressivity taken from Tifferet and Vilnai-Yavetz [56] included full smile, operationally defined as a wide smile displaying teeth; head-canting, operationally defined as a lateral tilt of the head; and eye contact, operationally defined as looking at the camera unobstructed by tinted or opaque eyewear. These variables were coded as eye contact (0 = not looking at the camera; 1 = looking at the camera), smiling (0 = no smile or slight smile without teeth; 1 = smile with teeth), head canting (0 = no tilt of the head; 1 = tilt of the head), and each user’s portrait was rated accordingly. To ensure inter-rater reliability, ten independent raters (undergraduate students of psychology) were asked to rate the pictures for each of these measures separately, and only those which had 75% agreement were counted for subsequent analyses.

2.4 Data analysis

The data obtained from the 669 profiles was analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi square test of independence using SPSS 25. Means and standard deviations of the main variables of interest, self-promotion, agentic and communion themes, and emotional expressivity calculated by gender can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1 Means and standard deviations (SD) of variables under study
Full size table

Chi-square test of independence was conducted for each of the aforementioned variables and gender. The results of the statistical analysis are presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4.

Table 2 Chi-square test of independence for gender and self-promotion metrics (N = 669)
Full size table
Table 3 Chi-square test of independence for gender and agentic/communion words in LinkedIn summaries (N = 669)
Full size table
Table 4 Chi-square test of independence for gender and emotional expressiveness in LinkedIn portraits (N = 669)
Full size table

3 Results

The results presented in Table 2 proves the first set of hypotheses pertaining to gender differences on self-promotion. H1a stated that there will be a significant difference in the number of skills listed by men and women on their LinkedIn profiles. This was supported by the chi-square analysis for number of skills and gender which revealed a significant relationship between the two [X^2 (1, N = 669) = 62.38, p < 0.01], showing that men were more likely to mention higher number of skills in their LinkedIn profiles than women. Hypothesis 1b that there will be a significant difference in the summary length of the LinkedIn ‘about me’ summaries of men and women was also supported. The chi-square analysis for number of awards and honors, and gender revealed a significant relationship between the two [X^2 (1, N = 669) = 18.83, p < 0.01], indicating that men were more likely to mention higher number of awards and honors in their LinkedIn profiles than their women counterparts. H1c stated that there will be a significant difference in the number of awards and honors mentioned by men and women on their LinkedIn profiles. This was also supported by the chi-square analysis conducted for length of summary and gender, revealing a significant relationship between the two variables [X^2 (1, N = 669) = 17.37, p < 0.01], indicating that men were more likely to have longer personal summaries on their LinkedIn profiles than women.

The second hypothesis, formulated for gender differences on agentic and communion themes, had two parts. H2a stated that there will be a significant difference in the number of agentic words used by men and women in their ‘about me’ summaries on LinkedIn. This was rejected as the chi-square analysis found no significant association between gender and the number of agentic words used in LinkedIn summaries, [X^2 (1, N = 669) = 0.06, p < 0.05] (refer to Table 3). However, H2b that stated that there will be a significant difference in the number of communion words used by men and women in their ‘about me’ summaries on LinkedIn was accepted. The chi-square analysis revealed a significant relationship between the two [X^2 (1, N = 669) = 4.53, p < 0.05], with women using more communion words than their men counterparts (Refer to Table 3).

The third hypothesis stated that men and women will be significantly different on emotional expressivity (as seen in eye contact, smiling and head-canting) in their LinkedIn portraits. H3(a) that there will be a significant difference in eye contact of males and females in their LinkedIn portraits was rejected. No significant association was observed between gender and eye contact in LinkedIn portraits, [X^2 (1, N = 669) = 0.25, p > 0.05], (refer to Table 3). H3(b) that there will be a significant difference in full smile in the LinkedIn portraits of men and women was accepted. Gender and smiling were significantly related, [X^2 (1, N = 669) = 34.048, p < 0.01], with women more likely to display a full smile than their men counterparts in their LinkedIn portraits. H3(c) that there will be a significant difference in head canting in the LinkedIn portraits of men and women was also accepted. Gender and head canting were also significantly related, [X^2 (1, N = 669) = 14.57, p < 0.01], with women more likely to display head canting than men in their LinkedIn portraits (refer to Table 3). Thus, the results partially supported the hypothesis that portraits of men and women will be significantly different on emotional expressivity.

4 Discussion

The current study investigated gender differences on LinkedIn profiles on self-promotion, agency/communion-related self-descriptors, and emotional expressivity in portraits, among recent MBA graduates in India. Our results using chi-square analyses have clearly demonstrated that men self-promote more than women on all metrics of their LinkedIn profiles, viz. number of skills, number of awards and honors listed, and the length of their personal summaries. Women’s portraits showed higher signs of emotional expressivity in comparison to men. Further, a significant difference was found on the use of communion words, but not agentic words, between men and women. The following section will analyze the possible causes of these differences as well as the implications of the same.

Our findings that men self-promote more than women are consistent with those of previous studies [12, 17, 22]. The findings of the present study are further substantiated by previous work (e.g., [4]) who also found that women relative to men are less likely to utilize data fields that require writing in free-form such as the Summary. While previous work [62]) found that the number of recommendations received by men was higher than that of women, the present study has shown such a difference for Honors and Awards subfield as well.

This seems to be an indicator of self-promotion and not underlying genuine differences between men and women. Let us consider several exams conducted in India, where women not just perform as well as men, but indeed outperform them. For example, on the Civil Services exam, probably the most difficult exam to crack in India, held to recruit candidates into top government services like IAS, IPS, etc., the top four rank holders in 2022 were women [51]. Similarly, girls consistently outshine the boys in CBSE school boards examinations [18]. Yet, when it comes to awards and Honors field on LinkedIn, there are no clear guidelines for what counts as an award or honor. Herridge [28] notes, ‘You decide on a successful accomplishment based on your brand, industry, and what you consider an achievement’. Evidently, men consider their accomplishments worth mentioning in the field of awards and Honors, whereas women do not.

As regards the type of skills listed [38], it was reported that compared to women, men focus more on technical skills, while women focus on soft skills, personal attributes and education on their LinkedIn profiles. Our findings also show that 53 women mentioned ‘team management’ in their top three skills providing a sharp contrast to only 26 men who reported ‘team management’ as their top 10 skills. Most men included technical skills such as Microsoft Office, Business strategy and Management in their top three skills. The current findings highlight that women not only report lower numbers of skills, but also those that are consistent with stereotypical gender prescriptions.

This finding has been carried forward when it comes to decoding agentic/communal themes in the users’ summaries as well. However, the present study found gender differences only in the use of communal words, but not agentic words. Such differences between men and women profiles can be seen clearly in excerpts from two sample summaries presented below.

“I am a management consulting and investment advisory professional with a successful track record of helping large corporates, venture capital and private equity clients achieve their business and investment goals”. (Male User).

“A ‘natural communicator’ (as my peers say), I have experience of navigating tough team dynamics and managing teams, even those not directly reporting to me. Creative and diverse in interests, also have some experience in professional Art Direction, Indian classical singing, art-photography, creative writing, and oil & watercolor painting”. (Female User).

Professional women vying for job positions face a double bind. They must dispel gender stereotypes by coming across as knowledgeable, assured, and assertive (i.e., agentic) to be seen as qualified. Women can overcome this obstacle by displaying agency, but doing so makes them seem less likeable and employable, although equally competent as men. Rudman and Glick [48] suggested that women are penalized for disobeying gender norms of the society unless they ‘temper their agency with niceness’. It is perhaps for this reason that women may have shown a significantly greater use of communion words in their LinkedIn profile summaries than men, while showing no significant difference in the use of agentic words. Newman et al. [39] also reported that women used more personal pronouns, intensive adverbs (e.g., “really”, “very”, “so”), and emotion words, and were more likely to discuss family and social life, which is consistent with the findings of the present study. Streib et al. [54] similarly reported that while women portrayed themselves like men on masculine traits, men did not present themselves like women on communion.

Lastly, the findings of the present study demonstrate that women are more emotionally expressive in their LinkedIn profile portraits than men. Women were significantly higher on head canting and a full smile in comparison with men. The key to understanding such differences in pictures again lies in gender-based norms: women are expected to generally smile and cry more, and show affection as part of the primary role of the caregiver. A meta-analysis by LaFrance, Hecht and Paluck [36] found that gender differences in smiling were more pronounced when people felt involved in an interaction, whether an encounter in real life, or another imagined person, such as talking to a camera. Since LinkedIn is a public platform, it further increases conformity to implicit rules regarding conduct and appearance that are defined separately for men and women.

Just as smiling, head canting too as a sign of emotional expressivity appears to be tightly tied to the female gender. Previous research has documented a stronger tendency for head canting among women in comparison to men, as seen in yearbook portraits [44], and even LinkedIn [56]. According to the evolutionary perspective, head canting may have developed to convey ‘appeasement’ [44], ‘submissiveness’ [24], or a ‘form of ingratiation’ achieved by shortening one’s height [20]. However, no significant difference emerged between men and women users when it came to eye contact. LinkedIn itself recommends using pictures with eye contact and earlier studies (e.g., [56]) also found that most people adhere to such recommendations.

Since India is one of the top three countries on the Masculinity Index, recently renamed, rather aptly as Motivation towards Achievement and Success (Hofstede [30]), which focuses on the degree to which a society reinforces gender differentiation, men and women are encouraged to engage in different paths of emotional expressivity, such as smiling and head canting. This proposition then fits with the findings of Guadagno and Cialdini [22] who reported that women utilize less aggressive and other-oriented forms of impression management (such as ingratiation) more frequently than men, who use greater self-promotion.

All the results, taken together, seem to endorse the role congruity theory. Men and women differ in their professional self-presentations on LinkedIn in keeping with this tendency to behave according to gender congruent roles. Perceived incongruity between the female gender role and that of the job-seeker (assertive, confident, ambitious, dynamic, emphatic, and to some extent ‘in-your face’) may lead the recruiters’ perceiving women less favorably than men as potential occupant of the job role. Women, being aware of this stereotype, downplay self-promotion and also behave in other feminine ways.

Recent researches conducted in the Global North seem to reflect a shift in gender norms with respect to modesty. For instance, Krings, Manoharan, and Mendes de Oliveira [35] reported that while older female candidates experience greater backlash for high self-promotion, this was not true for their younger female candidates, despite being perceived as equally competent. Another study found that women across all age-groups continue to be judged ‘warmer’ (i.e., communion) than men, whether Swedish or Arab [55].

The results of the present study are somewhat contrasting to this work. The women in the present study (aged less than 45 years) seem to be behaving in line with the ‘feminine modesty’ effect [10]. It may be contended that women in India still underrepresent their accomplishments in front of others to avoid being perceived as unfeminine, aggressive, or domineering due to perceived societal repercussions [48]. Women are even more prone to be modest in public than in private settings [12], a finding that can be easily extrapolated to LinkedIn profiles. This leads women to be more hesitant than men in highlighting their achievements, such as skills, awards and honors. In a similar vein, they also smile more and tilt their heads in their portraits- both behaviors add to likeability for women. Interestingly, it seems that while women do want to manage gender and appear able by using as many agentic words in their self-presentations as men, they perhaps compensate by also using more communion words, in order to appear more gender congruent.

5 Conclusion

It may be concluded that a gender gap exists in how men and women leverage LinkedIn. Our results highlight the need for greater understanding of factors that influence self-presentation in SNSs, and also how self-promotion by women could influence the decision of recruiters.

6 Limitations and future directions

The scarce research and literature on profiles on LinkedIn necessitated our current study to be exploratory in nature, thus some methodological drawbacks were unavoidable. The data collection was restricted to public profiles based on the search algorithms of LinkedIn. Also, since the sample comprises only of those aged below 45 years, and whose LinkedIn profiles included a picture and an ‘about section’, it limits generalizability of our findings. Future researchers are encouraged to explore self-presentation of those not included in the present study. Since it was not possible to verify that the people included in the sample were indeed looking for a job, their self-presentation on LinkedIn may not have been done with the goal of looking attractive for potential new employers. Next, our study focused on a specific industry of consulting which is considered rather egalitarian. The findings may not be generalizable to more male dominated and ‘masculine’ fields of work. Further, the current findings are associative, not causal. This means that the current research cannot make claims about the causes of gender differences. Our study was also restricted by the assumption of a gender binary, and people who identified outside of the gender binary were not considered in the present study. Finally, the present study has merely looked at gender differences on LinkedIn profiles, and has not assessed the impact of gender on selection outcomes. Since the job-seekers are new entrants in the job market, the present research could not assess whether the jobs women secure differ in terms of companies, sectors, and positions from those of men. Future researchers are encouraged to take this up by means of longitudinal studies.

7 Implications

Several implications are worth noting. First, gender gap in self-promotion may place women at a disadvantage relative to men in their capacity to achieve professional and social recognition, hence contributing to the gender pay disparity found in organizations. Second, a lack in self-promotion by women suggests that they are less effective at communicating their true qualities and achievements to potential employers relative to men, perhaps leading to suboptimal hiring.

The study also offers several practical implications for job seekers, particularly women who may present themselves in a more job-appropriate manner, albeit not necessarily a gender-appropriate one. Our results showed that men mention more skills, awards and honors, and use longer summary length on LinkedIn profiles significantly more than women do. Since people draw conclusions about others based on the amount of information they supply, it may be suggested that supplying such information could be advantageous particularly for women job applicants. Listing more skills, for instance, may increase her chances of being perceived as more capable. Another crucial recommendation particularly for women is to pay heed to their portraits and choose one that presents them in a professional and confident manner, but not over friendly (full smile) or submissive (head canting).

As companies become accountable for structural equality, our work has implications for recruiters and diversity practitioners who need to recognize gender differences in self-presentation. Because women tend to undersell themselves in accordance with societal gendered norms, organizations should be cautious before giving undue emphasis to self-generated summaries in making merit judgements. As women have a propensity to use communal language, this might also have a negative impact on how recruiters evaluate leadership ability and hireability of women who apply for traditionally male jobs. Such self-evaluations should be deemphasized relative to more objective metrics in determining selection decisions.

At the same time, normalizing self-promotion could enhance a woman’s self-promotion experience as well as her motivation for the job itself and her sense of belonging. Indeed, recent research [2] found self-promotion used by women to influence not just selection outcomes, but also more positive evaluations of interpersonal attributes. This brings to question the belief that it is not appropriate for women to self-promote especially in patriarchal cultures such as India. It is recommended that sensitization programs be carried out to reduce the discomfort with self-promotion among women job seekers, and among recruiters to reduce the unconscious biases against women who self-promote.