Researchers are familiar with the gender gaps in performance evaluations of employees, and the promotion gaps that follow. Firms are aware of this too, and many of them take serious steps to become fair in their evaluations. Imagine looking inside one such firm - a Fortune 500 technology company committed to fairness - and seeing that they also differ in how men and women’s work is evaluated. How could that happen?
Research by Shelley J. Correll, Katherine R. Weisshaar, Alison Wynn, and JoAnne DelfinoWehner published in American Sociological Review shed light on how unfair evaluations
happen. They looked at the scores given to men and women, and also examined the
text of the performance assessments. They asked two questions: (1) Were workplace
behaviors viewed similarly when done by women and men? (2) Were workplace
behaviors valued similarly when done by women and men?
What is
viewed and how it is valued are central components of performance assessment. And,
in this firm, the answer to the two questions were “yes” to both questions for
most of the nearly 90 workplace behaviors they studied. The interesting part is
in the exceptions to this rule, because that is where gender bias is found.
Let’s start
with what behaviors were viewed more often in men and women evaluations. For
men, managing people was mentioned much more often, and nearly always
positively. For women, communication style was mentioned much more often, and
nearly always negatively. In fact, the (common) negative views of women’s
communication style were the exact opposite of the (rare) negative views of men’s
communication style. Women were too aggressive and outspoken, said the performance
valuations, and men were too modest.
Does that
match our everyday experience of how women and men communicate? Perhaps not, and
maybe it suggests that they were held to different standards. Women are
supposed to be modest and soft spoken; men are supposed to be assertive. This
is so conventional that it is remarkable to find such a double standard in a
firm committed to fair evaluation.
Now let’s
see what behaviors were valued differently in men and women evaluations. This
is also very conventional. Being a helpful person was viewed similarly often in
men and women and typically produced the second-highest rating. A four out of
five, so promotion possible but not a sure thing. Being a person who takes
charge was much viewed more often in men and was strongly linked to a top
rating in men but to a second-highest rating in women.
Again, we
see the same convention play itself out. Men should communicate assertively,
they should take charge, and they should be promoted for this. Women being helpful
and taking charge is OK, but not great.
Language matters
because it shapes thinking, which in turn affects how people are evaluated by others
and given responsibilities at work. It is doubtful that a technology firm benefits
from having evaluation and promotion practices that correspond to old-fashioned
gender roles, and it is certain that such practices are not fair. To change
them, it is necessary to change how managers view, value, and talk about
behaviors at work.
