“Do women take enough risks?” That’s a question asked often enough you would think the answer held some important clue to understanding ‘Game of Thrones’. The better question might be, even if they seem true, are gender stereotypes ever useful?

Ahead of hosting AHRI’s International Women’s Day breakfasts in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane next month, HRM interviewed high-profile Australian author and human rights activist Tara Moss. Among questions about what barriers women face in the workplace we asked her, “Do women need to take more risks?”

Moss’s response was to the point: “It depends on the person and the risk. Many women take a lot of risks. We need a community that is more often supportive of women who take a chance on positive things, and putting themselves out there.”

This practical answer cuts though the gender stereotype; and makes our question a little embarrassing. Assumed knowledge, in this case the suggestion that women take fewer risks than men in the workplace, is often simply that.

The notion that women don’t take as many risks as men seems to have originally arisen from very broad research – such as the finding that men are more likely to go skydiving – and that when a study is tailored specifically to business decisions the genders will typically display a very similar propensity towards taking risks.

Other research suggests that women and men might take a similar amount but different kinds of risks. Leaders of both genders were found to take personal risks at a similar frequency but male leaders were more willing to the kinds of risks that affect the whole team. Writing in the Harvard Business Review, Doug Sundheim, author of Taking Smart Risks, says in his experience women are more willing to take risks for ethical reasons, for what they believe is right, while men will take more physical and financial risks.

So if we’re going to talk about risk-taking at work, perhaps it’s time we took gender out of the equation and looked at risk as a principle first. For instance, why is risk-taking valued, or perhaps, when should risk-taking be valued?

If you work for a startup, or another company where calculated gambles are the only way to be successful, then it makes sense to place a higher premium on leaders who will make those bets. But even then, is it always smart to prefer a manager who will risk the wellbeing of her or his group for the sake of a business goal? Yes you might hit some short-term target, but is this worthwhile if the team that made it happen quits due to burnout?

And while contemplating that dilemma, consider this: evidence suggests startups with a woman amongst the founders provide a 63% better return on investment than those run exclusively by men. Again, the stereotype fails to stand up to critique.

We should never confuse broad data with the reality in front of us. Even if, statistically, a woman is less inclined to take risks than a man, that tells you nothing about the particular person you’re thinking of recruiting or promoting. That’s what the evidence says, but it’s also common sense. Each candidate is different, and their past record is a better indication of their future performance than a stereotype, or a study that describes a demographic tendency.

When you don’t do this, and instead recruit based on the stereotype, you miss out. In one study, when investors were pitched the same idea they were 60 per cent more likely to invest in it if it were proposed by a man. So perhaps it’s not women that need to take more risks; maybe we need to take more risks on women.

Join Tara Moss, acclaimed author, journalist and human rights advocate, at AHRI’s International Women’s Day Breakfast in Melbourne (7 March), Brisbane (8 March) and Sydney (9 March) this year. Find out more.