Reducing Gender Bias in Performance Reviews

A recent study of 25,000 documents evaluating employee performance found that women were 22 percent more likely to receive personality-based feedback than men. Black, Latinx, and older employees also consistently received lower-quality feedback than white men. This was true across all organizations and regardless of the gender of the evaluator.

Personality-based feedback, which might include words like “abrasive,” “collaborative,” or “opinionated,” is not actionable or constructive. It potentially limits opportunities for career advancement. In addition, it is susceptible to implicit bias—bias the bias-holder may be unaware they hold. For example, women were 11 times more likely to be called “abrasive” than men, according to the study. Owing to gender stereotypes, women are often considered aggressive or abrasive for behaviors that would be considered assertive or ambitious—and completely acceptable—in men.

People holding implicit biases are unaware that they do. “[P]articipants who express little or no explicit bias nonetheless consistently show bias when tested with implicit measures,” researchers Keon West and Asia A. Eaton found. “This effect applies to sexism as well as racism.” Evaluators can take a free Implicit Association Test developed by a consortium of universities. The results will only be shared with the test taker, but they may reveal to them the need for measures to counter unconscious biases.

Performance review forms with broad open-ended questions can be used to assess employees in a wide range of positions, but they leave room for personality-driven responses that rely on stereotypes and unconscious biases. This unfairly harms or helps employees of different groups. Changing performance assessment forms to establish criteria used for evaluation can result in less biased feedback. In addition to improving equity, this change should also result in more constructive comments that employees can use to improve their performance. “[T]he big takeaway is that open boxes on feedback forms make feedback open to bias,” Kevin Campbell writes. “That’s why it helps to take a ‘mad libs’ approach to feedback,” with structured evaluation forms.

Measures can also be taken to mitigate “in-group belonging bias,” also called “similar-to-me bias,” writes researcher Paola Cecchi-Dimeglio. “Because white men continue to dominate upper management in most companies, they tend to get preferential treatment in the review process.” Men accounted for 77 percent of partners and principals at architecture firms in 2022 yet just 64 percent of licensed architects were male, according to the American Institute of Architects. Cecchi-Dimeglio suggests that evaluators find something they have in common with their employee before starting their review. Identifying even small work-related commonalities can help reduce this bias in evaluations. 

National Photo Company, c. 1917 (Library of Congress)

The negative impact of inequitable reviews is cumulative and contributes to pay inequalities. When equally skilled male and female employees start at the same level, if the woman faces a 3 percent gender bias it will take her 8.5 years to reach the highest level that her male colleague reaches in just 4 years, a computer simulation by Jessica Nordell and Yaryna Serkez  shows. This is true across professions.

Unfavorable opportunities for advancement are one of the reasons female architects leave their firms, or leave the profession altogether. Implementing more equitable performance reviews will benefit both the profession and the individuals being evaluated.

Please subscribe to The Architectress.

Sources:

Kieran Snyder and Aileen Lee, “No more ‘abrasive,’ ‘opinionated,’ or ‘nice’: Why managers need to stop giving women and people of color feedback on their personality.” Fortune.com, June 15, 2022.

Keon West and Asia A. Eaton, “Prejudiced and unaware of it: Evidence for the Dunning-Kruger model in the domains of racism and sexism.” Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 146, August 2019, pp. 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.047

Kevin Campbell, “10 Performance Review Biases and How to Avoid Them [Updated 2023],” Culture Amp.

Paola Cecchi-Dimeglio, “6 Ways to Make Performance Reviews More Fair,” Harvard Business Review, July 22, 2022.

Jessica Nordell and Yaryna Serkez, “This Is How Everyday Sexism Could Stop You From Getting That Promotion,” New York Times,  October 14, 2021.

The American Institute of Architects, “The Business of Architecture: 2022.”