Closing the Belief–Ability Mismatch among Women Engineers in India

In India, the engineering profession remains male-dominated at nearly every level, from undergraduate enrollment, to job placement, to leadership roles in engineering firms. Yet multiple studies globally show that women often perform as well or better than men academically in STEM/engineering disciplines, while being less confident in their abilities. This mismatch between belief (self-confidence, self-efficacy) and ability (actual performance) is often called the confidence gap or belief–ability mismatch. When that gap persists, it undermines women’s advancement, ambition, and retention in engineering careers.

The challenge is not simply to develop technical skills (though that is important) but also to close the gap between what women believe they can do and what they actually can do (and often already do). In India, this is especially acute because of cultural and structural pressures, gender norms, and underrepresentation that amplify internal doubts.

This article explores:

1. What is the confidence gap / belief–ability mismatch (especially in engineering and STEM contexts)
2. Evidence from India and globally of this mismatch in women engineers
3. Key root causes (societal, institutional, psychological)
4. The consequences (for individuals, organizations, and the country)
5. Policies, programs, and promising interventions (especially in India)
6. Success stories / role models from India
7. Concrete recommendations and steps (including within WiSN / support networks)
8. Limitations, ongoing challenges, and call to action

1. What Is the Confidence Gap / Belief–Ability Mismatch?

Defining the terms

• Confidence gap typically refers to the phenomenon where women systematically underrate their abilities or potential, relative to men, even when they have equal or stronger competence.
• Self-efficacy (in psychology) is the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute actions required to manage prospective situations (Bandura). In academic/engineering contexts, it is the belief, “I can solve this engineering problem,” or “I can persisting through this course.”
• Belief–ability mismatch (or efficacy–performance misalignment) describes a pattern where people’s self-assessed belief in their ability is misaligned with actual performance. In many studies, women show lower self-efficacy or confidence than men even when their grades or measurable outcomes are equal or better.

In STEM/engineering, the confidence gap can manifest as:

• Hesitation to volunteer for challenging tasks or advanced courses
• Underestimating one’s readiness for job roles or promotions
• Fear of failure or perfectionism
• Attribution of success to external factors (luck) rather than internal ability
• Impostor syndrome
• Reluctance to negotiate salary or ask for leadership roles

This mismatch has been documented in many contexts globally, and its harmful effects include underrepresentation, attrition, and a self-reinforcing cycle of underconfidence.

Evidence from Engineering and STEM Research

A landmark study, A mismatch between self-efficacy and performance: Undergraduate women in engineering tend to have lower self-efficacy despite earning higher grades than men, found that in engineering, physics, and mathematics courses, men reported significantly higher self-efficacy compared to women — even when women’s grades were as high or higher. ResearchGate+2arXiv+2 In other words, performance and confidence were decoupled.

That study suggests that self-efficacy differences are not merely reflections of performance gaps, they may be upstream, driving or reinforcing performance differences.

Other STEM research (e.g. on mathematics confidence) shows that low confidence reduces students’ persistence in STEM disciplines, even when their actual performance is strong. Science

Thus, closing the confidence gap is not just “soft skills” but fundamental to equity and utilization of talent.

2. The Indian Context: Women Engineers & the Confidence Gap

Panorama: Women in STEM / Engineering in India

To understand the magnitude:

• According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2024, about 30.8% of Indian graduates in engineering, manufacturing, and construction are women.
• In India’s STEM workforce, women’s representation is estimated at ~27% overall, lower in engineering (~15%) and in technology fields (~21%).
• Despite a relatively strong pipeline of female STEM graduates, only 20–25% of the engineering workforce consists of women.
• In a survey of over 1,000 Indian women engineers, “low confidence” was cited as a primary barrier to securing jobs in advanced tech roles. Over 60% said lack of hands-on experience (and hence confidence) held them back.
• Many women in STEM in India face career stagnation due to unconscious bias, inflexible structures, and limited leadership exposure.

These numbers show that while many women choose engineering, fewer persist or rise. The confidence gap is one (not the only) factor in that attrition.

Evidence of belief–ability mismatch in Indian engineering education

While direct studies in India on efficacy–performance mismatch in engineering are fewer, some relevant findings:

• A recent Indian study on academic career self-efficacy (ACSE) among engineering graduates found that initial belief in academic ability shapes later self-efficacy, and that gender moderates these relationships.
• Some studies in Indian engineering education show that female students often self-report lower efficacy/ confidence despite similar performance. (E.g. in coeducational vs single-sex engineering colleges, self-efficacy scores among female students did not significantly differ, though performance sometimes did)
• In commentary and professional articles in India, “lack of confidence” often emerges as a theme behind why qualified women engineers are passed over or self-limit their careers.
• Institutional data: in many engineering colleges / departments, the proportion of women reduces at higher years, suggesting attrition. (Though exact causation is multifactorial, loss of confidence is likely one driver.)

Thus, although direct longitudinal matched studies are fewer in India, the patterns suggest that belief–ability mismatch is present and relevant.

Local stories and role models from India

• Leelamma Koshie: One of India’s pioneering women civil engineers (graduated in 1944), she persisted in a male-dominated PWD environment, eventually becoming Deputy Chief Engineer. Her career shows how early women faced both skill and confidence challenges.
• Modern Indian women engineers / entrepreneurs (though less studied) often speak publicly about “impostor syndrome,” confidence challenges, and the need for peer support networks (e.g. women in tech messaging, women-in-engineering communities).
• Some programs (e.g. those run by NGOs, or private sector initiatives) showcase women returning to work, participating in upskilling bootcamps, or leading engineering projects, and often credit their success to mentorship, confidence-building, and peer networks.

These narratives are vital to demonstrate that the confidence gap is surmountable and not an inherent flaw.

3. Root Causes of the Belief–Ability Mismatch in India

To design interventions, we must understand why this mismatch arises in the Indian engineering context. Below are overlapping and interacting causes.

1. Gender norms, stereotypes, and socialization

• In many Indian households and cultures, girls are not encouraged as strongly in math, science, or “mechanical play” from an early age. That early divergence shapes beliefs about what is “for boys” vs “for girls.”
• Stereotype threat: when women are reminded of negative stereotypes (“women are not good at engineering / math”), performance or confidence can suffer.
• Implicit biases among educators / peers: teachers may subconsciously call on male students more, or express doubts about girls’ technical ability, reinforcing internal doubt.
• Women may feel social pressure to avoid failure or “looking bad” because their work is scrutinized more, which leads to risk aversion and perfectionism.

These socialization forces shape beliefs about who “belongs” in engineering, and internalized beliefs limit confidence.

2. Lack of role models, mentors, and representation

• If women in engineering rarely see others like themselves in senior roles, they may feel less confident in pursuing higher positions or research paths.
• Visibility matters: women ask fewer questions in seminars (even when interested) partly due to internal hesitancy. A study in academia showed women ask fewer questions than men, often attributing their silence to internal factors (nerves).
• When conferences, departmental talks or leadership roles are male-dominated, women may feel peripheral.

Representation sends social and psychological signals of belonging, and its absence is a systemic contributor to the confidence gap.

3. Educational and institutional practices

• In engineering education, pedagogy often rewards speed, “bruteforce” problem solving, and a culture of competitiveness. Students who hesitate or think deeply may be penalized.
• Lab / hands-on exposure: many Indian engineering programs emphasize theory. Lack of hands-on practice (especially in early years) contributes to lower comfort and confidence with “real-world” engineering tasks.
• Assessment practices: high-stakes exams, curved grading, or fault-intolerant assessments can penalize tentative approaches. Students who struggle initially may internalize it as incapacity rather than a developmental curve.
• Course sequences and prerequisites: sometimes women, doubting themselves, avoid advanced electives (e.g. control systems, robotics) that would further build competence and confidence.

These institutional features can inadvertently penalize lower-confidence students and widen the gap.

4. Psychological phenomena: impostor syndrome, perfectionism, attribution, overthinking

• Impostor syndrome (feeling that one’s achievements are flukes and fearing being exposed as incompetent) is more frequently reported among women in STEM. This leads them to discount achievements and over-attribute success to luck.
• Perfectionism can stall progress: women may delay submitting work, avoid risk, or over-prepare, comparing with an ideal standard.
• Attribution style differences: Men are more likely to internalize success (“I succeeded because I worked”) and externalize failure (“I had bad exam questions”). Women are more likely to externalize success or internalize failure, hurting their confidence.
• Risk aversion and cautiousness: Lower confidence leads to less willingness to attempt uncertain challenges, reinforcing less experience, which further lowers confidence, a vicious loop.

5. Workplace, hiring, and culture barriers (reinforcing underconfidence)

• In the workplace, women may receive less credit, be judged more harshly, or be excluded from informal networks or projects, reinforcing self-doubt.
• When they are passed over for promotions or high-visibility assignments, even when performance is strong, it signals to them and others that their competence is undervalued.
• Negotiation gaps: women may be less likely to negotiate salaries or ask for challenging roles, amplifying cumulative disadvantage.
• Maternity breaks and career gaps: such breaks can contribute to doubts about being up-to-date with skills, reinforcing confidence erosion.

Thus, confidence gaps are not simply internal, they are interactional and systemic.

4. Consequences of the Confidence Gap

Why does this matter, beyond being unfair?

For individuals (women engineers)

• Lost opportunities: women may avoid applying for leadership, research, or challenging roles even when ready.
• Slower progression: hesitation in asking for promotion or pay may slow career growth.
• Burnout and attrition: the tension between internal doubts and external expectations can lead to stress, lower job satisfaction, and quitting engineering.
• Mental health toll: imposter feelings, anxiety about performance, and pressure to always overperform can cause emotional strain.

For organizations and society

• Talent under-utilization: organizations lose out on capable women who hold back due to confidence, reducing innovation and diversity of perspectives.
• Lower retention: companies lose women mid-career, which raises recruitment and training costs.
• Gender pay gap: compounding effects of negotiated salaries, promotions, and attrition widen pay gaps.
• National competitiveness: India’s economic growth depends on fully leveraging women’s human capital. Confidence gaps reduce women’s contribution in engineering, tech, and infrastructure sectors.

Feedback loops and self-reinforcement

Underconfidence → avoidance of challenge → reduced experience → lower perceived competence → further underconfidence. Without intervention, gaps can compound over a lifetime.

5. Policies, Programs, & Interventions (with Indian Focus)

To close the belief–ability mismatch, interventions must operate at multiple levels: individual, institutional, organizational, and national policy. Below is a review of promising strategies and their relevance in India.

Individual / Psychological interventions

1. Growth mindset training
   Teaching that ability is developed through effort and learning, not innate, can help students reframe setbacks as learning opportunities. Many studies show mindset interventions improve self-efficacy.
2. Self-efficacy scaffolding / mastery experiences
   Structuring early successes with feedback helps build confidence. For example, breaking tasks into incremental challenges, celebrating small wins, and gradually increasing task difficulty.
3. Attributional retraining
   Helping women attribute success internally (e.g. effort, strategy) and failures to controllable factors (e.g. effort, mistakes) rather than fixed lack of ability.
4. Mentoring, coaching, peer groups
   • One-on-one mentors (especially senior women) can validate competence, provide guidance, and normalize doubts.
   • Peer learning groups allow sharing and mutual encouragement, reducing isolation.
   • Coaching sessions on dealing with imposter thoughts, perfectionism, and confidence practices.
5. Imposter syndrome workshops / narrative sharing
   Open forums where women share their struggles, normalizing the experience and reducing stigma. Hearing stories from others reduces the sense of being alone in doubt.
6. Public speaking / visibility training
   Encouraging women to present research, ask questions, lead discussions, practicing assertiveness in safe spaces.
7. Confidence-building labs / bootcamps
   For example, coding bootcamps, hackathons, lab challenges exclusively for women or mixed but supportive environments, to build comfort with engineering tasks.

Institutional / Educational interventions

1. Inclusive pedagogy and curriculum design
   • Use collaborative, project-based learning rather than purely competitive exams
   • Scaffold assignments so that risk is mitigated
   • Use graded feedback loops and formative assessment
   • Encourage class participation and question-asking (especially from female students)
   • Use diverse examples and inclusive classroom culture
2. Early gender-inclusive exposure in schools
   Encourage girls in middle and high school to take up robotics, coding, math challenges; provide summer camps or clubs with female mentors.
3. Hands-on labs and maker spaces
   Ensure equal access to labs, tools, workshops, and maker spaces. Early exposure builds comfort, not just cognitive knowledge.
4. Role model exposures and speaker series
   Invite women engineers, alumni, industry leaders to speak, mentor, and interact with female students to increase visibility and sense of belonging.
5. Bridge/transition programs
   For first-year female engineering students: orientation, workshops, confidence-building modules, mentorship, peer buddy systems.
6. Scholarship and fellowship programs with psychosocial support
   Beyond financial aid, programs that integrate community, coaching, and leadership training.
7. Monitoring and evaluation with gender lens
   Institutions should track gender-disaggregated progression, dropout rates, course selection, grades, and feedback to diagnose where confidence gaps are strongest.

Organizational / Industry interventions

1. Bias training and inclusive culture building
   Train managers, leads, HR on implicit bias, microaggressions, fair work allocation, and supportive feedback.
2. Transparent criteria for promotions / assignments
   Clear expectations reduce ambiguity that disproportionately hurts lower-confidence employees.
3. Sponsorship programs
   Senior leaders actively sponsor women, promoting them into higher visibility projects, “stretch roles,” and leadership pipelines.
4. Flexible work policies, return-to-work programs
   Accommodate breaks, re-skilling, part-time roles, mentorship reentry, to reduce career break anxiety.
5. Pay negotiation training for women
   Workshops to teach negotiation skills, assertiveness, and confidence in salary discussions.
6. Women’s affinity groups / internal networks
   Offering safe spaces for women engineers to share, mentor, and strategize within organizations.

Policy / Government / National-level interventions

1. Female STEM/engineering quotas or scholarships
   Reserved seats or extra incentives for women in engineering colleges (already used in some states/institutions).
2. National women-in-engineering fellowships
   Government-funded leadership fellowships for mid-career women to accelerate career growth.
3. Grants for women-led engineering projects
   To increase visibility, portfolio, and status of women engineers.
4. Industry–academia partnerships for internship / exposure programs
   Specifically target women engineering students for internships, mentoring, and hands-on exposure in companies.
5. Awareness campaigns and media representation
   Promote stories of successful Indian women engineers in media to shift societal stereotypes.
6. Gender-equity mandates in public engineering projects / contracts
   Require a certain percentage of women engineers in large-scale infrastructure, government tech projects.
7. Funding for research on gender & engineering in India
   To generate data, longitudinal studies, and evidence-based interventions.

6. Indian Success Stories & Initiatives

Several Indian initiatives demonstrate that the confidence gap can be narrowed through mentorship, visibility, and structured support.

Corporate And Industry Programs
Many Indian technology and engineering companies have launched return-to-work schemes, leadership pathways for women, and re-skilling initiatives. These programs provide mentoring, peer communities, and confidence-building workshops that help women engineers re-enter the workforce and grow into leadership roles.

STEM Outreach And Mentorship Foundations
Organisations such as the Women in STEM Foundation India conduct outreach campaigns, mentoring circles, and role-model showcases to inspire girls and women to pursue and stay in STEM careers. Their focus on relatable stories and community mentoring has proven particularly valuable for students in smaller towns.

Professional And Peer Networks
Across India, informal and formal women-in-engineering groups are creating spaces for collaboration, leadership development, and negotiation practice. These communities host online meetups, technical workshops, and confidence-focused sessions that strengthen professional identity and belonging.

Educational Institutions And Universities
Some engineering colleges now run women-focused induction programmes, mentorship links with female alumni, and small peer groups to support first-year students. Others encourage mixed-gender project teams with rotating leadership roles to ensure equitable participation and visibility.

Although long-term evaluation data are limited, feedback from participants consistently highlights greater self-confidence, stronger professional networks, and higher career aspirations. These examples show that when women engineers are given structured support and visible pathways, their belief in their abilities quickly aligns with their proven performance.

7. Closing the Gap: Concrete Recommendations & Steps

Below is a roadmap of practical steps (for individuals, institutions, organizations, and networks) to help close the confidence–performance mismatch. Many of these can be adopted or promoted within the Women in Stem Network or allied networks.

For individuals (women engineers / students)

1. Join (or form) support groups / peer circles
   • Meet regularly to discuss challenges, share wins, and help each other build confidence.
   • Use Women in Stem Network chapters or local groups for engineering women to connect.
2. Seek mentors and coaches
   • Request mentors (female or male allies) who understand engineering contexts.
   • Engage in short-term coaching on impostor syndrome, confidence, communication.
3. Set stretch goals with incremental exposure
   • Volunteer to lead a small project / subcomponent.
   • Present at departmental seminars.
   • Apply for internal promotions or roles, even if uncertain initially.
4. Document and internalize success
   • Maintain a “brag book”: list projects, positive feedback, skill growth.
   • When doubt arises, review the record of achievements.
5. Practice “failure reframing”
   • When a setback occurs, analyze what can be learned rather than seeing it as proof of failure.
   • Reflect on strategies and growth rather than fixed outcomes.
6. Take negotiation / confidence courses
   • Many online or institutional modules exist.
   • Practice role-play in safe environments before real negotiation.
7. Engage in visibility-building
   • Volunteer to present, lead sessions, submit to conferences, ask questions.
   • Over time, repeated exposure reduces anxiety and builds confidence.

For engineering colleges / departments

1. Implement first-year bridge / confidence-building modules
   • A “Women in Engineering Bootcamp” focusing on hands-on projects, soft-skills, peer bonding
   • Assign female alumni or industry mentors to first-year female students
2. Active encouragement to take advanced electives
   • Advisors should proactively suggest higher-level courses to women, not wait for them to ask.
3. Inclusive classroom practices
   • Instructors can call on diverse students, give positive reinforcement, ensure balanced participation
   • Anonymous or small-group problem solving can reduce performance pressure
4. Lab / project-based curriculum with scaffolding
   • Ensure every student gets guided exposure to hardware, design, coding, prototyping
   • Team assignments that rotate leadership roles so all students gain confidence
5. Female role model talks and visibility campaigns
   • Bring in successful women engineers (alumni, industry) to share stories and mentor
   • Publicize women faculty and students achievements prominently
6. Tracking and feedback systems
   • Collect data on female student retention, dropouts, elective choices, performance vs confidence
   • Surveys of self-efficacy each semester to monitor and intervene early

For organizations / companies

1. Structured sponsorship programs
   • Identify women with potential and assign senior leaders to sponsor them for high-visibility roles and promotions.
2. Confidence-building training & coaching
   • Offer workshops, internal coaching, or partner with external coaches to support women in engineering roles.
3. Transparent promotion / assignment criteria
   • Clear metrics reduce uncertainty, which disproportionately impacts lower-confidence employees.
4. Internal women’s networks / affinity groups
   • Allow safe spaces to share experiences, support each other, run internal workshops.
5. Returnship / re-entry programs
   • For engineers returning from breaks (e.g. maternity), run structured training, mentorship, reintegration, and confidence rebuilding.
6. Culture audits and bias mitigation
   • Regularly audit decisions for bias; ensure inclusive language, fair feedback, and equal opportunity.

Role of the Women in Stem Network(and allied networks)

• Local chapters / peer support: WiSN can host smaller peer groups within engineering colleges or companies to support women engineers.
• Mentorship matching: Act as mentor-mentee matching hub for female engineers and students.
• Workshops & webinars: On confidence, negotiation, impostor syndrome, Self-efficacy building; encourage engineering colleges to adopt them.
• Visibility campaigns: Feature women engineers’ stories, promote female speakers in STEM events.
• Data and research advocacy: Encourage or partner with institutions to collect data on confidence-performance mismatch, evaluate interventions, publish findings.
• Collaboration with industry and academia: WiSN can mediate partnerships for internships, projects, scholarships targeted at women.

8. Limitations, Challenges, and Call to Action

Limitations and challenges

• Scarcity of rigorous Indian longitudinal studies: Much evidence is from international contexts; more India-specific research is needed to tailor interventions.
• Cultural inertia and resistance: Some institutions or individuals may resist change or deny bias exists.
• Sustainability of programs: Many mentoring or workshop programs are ad hoc; for sustained impact, they need sustained investment.
• Intersectionality: The confidence gap interacts with caste, class, region, and socioeconomic status — interventions must be sensitive to intersectional differences.
• Measuring impact: It can be hard to isolate the effect of confidence-building from other support programs.

Call to action

Closing the belief–ability mismatch is not a small fix, it requires concerted multi-stakeholder effort. Here’s what can be done immediately:

1. Commission or support an India-focused study on self-efficacy vs performance in engineering, tracking female and male students longitudinally.
2. Pilot confidence-bootcamp programs in a few engineering colleges (e.g. first-year female cohorts), with evaluation.
3. Engage industry partners to sponsor women’s leadership confidence development, returnship programs, and mentorship.
4. Embed confidence modules in WiSN’s network offerings, making them freely accessible across India.
5. Advocate for institutional policy: engineering college accreditation bodies could require gender-equity and student support in curricula.
6. Public awareness & narrative shift: media, social platforms, and educational campaigns can normalize women in engineering and counter stereotypes.

By working at all levels, individual, institutional, organizational, and public policy — we can begin to close the confidence gap and unlock the full potential of women engineers in India.