A few weeks ago, during our special webinar “The Leadership Gap No One Mentions”, I ran a quick poll asking attendees a simple question:

Where did you first come across this often-quoted stat?
“Women apply only if they meet 100% of the qualifications; men apply at 60%.”

The results were striking.

While almost three-quarters recognised the quote, only 2% said they had seen it in its original context – the actual white paper or research study. The vast majority had encountered it through media, conversations, LinkedIn posts, or second-hand references.

We asked the same question again on LinkedIn. This time, not a single respondent had seen the original source.

So, where did this stat come from?

This claim is frequently attributed to Hewlett-Packard (HP) and has been widely cited by reputable sources including Lean In, Harvard Business Review, McKinsey, and Forbes.

But here’s the important detail: it didn’t come from a published or peer-reviewed study.

It originated from an internal HP talent review, where the company was exploring possible reasons why fewer women were applying for internal promotions. One hypothesis was that women only applied if they met 100% of the listed criteria. But, as far as public records show, the review didn’t confirm that theory – and no formal conclusions were ever published.

Nonetheless, the idea was picked up, paraphrased, and repeated – eventually becoming a staple insight in conversations about gender and ambition.

Why does this matter?

The issue isn’t whether the stat feels true. The issue is that it’s often presented as fact, despite having no verifiable data behind it.

It’s evolved into a kind of shorthand – powerful, compelling, and often repeated – to the point where few question its origin. And when something is echoed by credible sources, it starts to feel undeniably true.

So, could all these respected platforms really have skipped fact-checking?

Maybe. Or maybe, like many of us, they trusted the credibility of the last person who said it.

This is how assumptions become accepted truths – not through bad intent, but through repetition.

The bigger question

This stat didn’t rise to prominence because it was true – it became truth because it was repeated.

That’s the real issue.

In leadership, the danger isn’t just misinformation – it’s unexamined information. The kind that slips into our thinking because it sounds right, aligns with what we already believe, or helps explain a pattern we’re eager to fix.

So, the deeper leadership question is this:

When do we stop checking – and start accepting?

Not just with stats. With hiring narratives. Performance assumptions. The stories we tell ourselves about who fits, who leads, and who belongs.

Here’s the challenge:

• What beliefs are guiding our decisions – without ever being interrogated?
• What “truths” are we passing on, just because they feel useful?
• What ideas have we inherited, but never really inspected?

This isn’t a call for cynicism. It’s a call for intellectual honesty.

Because real leadership isn’t about having all the answers – it’s about having the discipline to keep asking the questions that matter.

Even – and especially – when we think we already know the answer.

If this resonates with you, have a look at our upcoming sessions to see how we can help to unlock – and elevate – the potential in your workplaces.

Come and join the conversation over on LinkedIn to be kept up to date with the latest news!