I am actively working to learn and adopt more inclusive language to take discussions about the intersection of gender and work “beyond the binary.” Though the essay below largely refers to men and women, there is space to acknowledge nonbinary and non-gender-conforming folks in discussions about gender and work, particularly when it comes to the marginalization and erasure of people’s experiences and the need to create more equitable careers and workplaces for people from all gender identities.
If any folks who read this essay have resources to share on how to grow in the area of inclusive language (especially in workplace contexts), please share in the comments!
In my master’s degree research on women’s leadership development programs, I did a little digging into the gendered experience of work and career. We all know there is a lot to unpack there. Though not a focus of my eventual capstone work, plenty of research exists relating to performance evaluations and how gender influences managers’ perception of work, potential, and impact.
One group leading the way in this research is the VMWare Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab at Stanford University. The most recent research from the lab, also published by the Harvard Business Review in December 2023, identifies two distinct gender-related biases found in corporate performance reviews: viewing bias and valuing bias.
Viewing bias pops up when the same, or similar, traits and behaviors are described differently depending on the object’s gender. The classic example here is when describing communication styles between the genders; a woman is bossy while a man is assertive. We can look to team leadership descriptions for another example of viewing bias; a woman is described as empathetic while a man is considered soft.
Building on the impact of gendered language and viewing bias, valuing bias leads managers to reward the same or similar behaviors observed in men vs. women vs. nonbinary folks differently. In a corporate setting, we might see this play out in how behaviors are linked to revenue generation and other metric-driven results (positive or negative).
In a professional services organization, we may tie behavior to internal vs. external impact differently between, and among, people of different genders. Though two project managers may display similar behaviors and traits, the male project manager’s ability to build relationships may be attributed to positive client experiences (generating externally-focused value), while the female project manager’s same abilities may be recorded as creating a positive team atmosphere (creating internally-focused value).
In the context of performance reviews, viewing bias has been discussed and researched quite a bit. Thanks to the breadth of research on the subject, including true experiments and case studies, organizations have developed practices and tools to mitigate viewing bias in their employee review processes. In addition to a rise in improved conscious and unconscious bias training for managers and employees alike, some organizations use software designed to detect bias (examples here and here) in performance reviews, job postings, training materials, and other corporate documents.
Both technology and human-driven approaches, like improved training, have created a greater awareness of viewing biases in organizations. But, as the authors of the study point out, very little (to nothing) has been done to address valuing bias. Why? Because it is time-consuming and cumbersome to detect.
Identifying valuing bias requires not only keyword analysis but also a comprehensive review of the organization’s value systems. What are the traits, skills, and behaviors that lead to greater advancement in the organization? How are these measured? How do people get promoted? What role does the individual play in that process? What role does the manager play? How transparent is the process? And is it regularly reviewed?
The past decade has seen more companies moving away from performance reviews in favor of more continuous feedback models that allow managers to give formal and informal feedback more than just once a year. However, as the HBR article points out, eliminating performance reviews does not magically eliminate bias. Managers and organizations would be prudent to confront bias head-on and develop meaningful strategies to mitigate, manage, and eliminate as much bias from their systems as possible.
So let’s dig into it — how might an organization develop a system that scrutinizes how value is ascribed to certain traits and behaviors, and the ways that value may be assigned differently to employees based on gender (or race or ethnicity or any other identities)?
For performance reviews, the authors point to a simple solution of creating specific guidelines created to standardize the practice across the entire organization. This could look like creating multiple defined categories for review based on behaviors and traits that the organization wants its employees to exhibit, with predefined metrics.
Of course, there is always the argument that some roles will not fall into neat, pre-defined boxes selected for an enterprise performance review system. To this, I rebut, that perhaps the employee can and should be more involved in their performance review process. Having an employee and manager each, separately, evaluate the employee’s performance to review together can create fruitful and expansive conversations.
I happen to have personal experience to share here.
For many years I had a side gig as a weekend sales associate for a national retail chain. Every year my manager and I were both asked to, independently, rate my performance across different domains (customer service, personal development, product knowledge, etc.) and include concrete examples to support the selected ratings. What resulted were productive performance review experiences that allowed both me and my manager to give our reasonings and review my year together. Without fail, I would bring up an experience my manager had missed or forgotten, and vice-versa.
Granting employees direct input to their reviews can take a significant burden off managers to remember it all, while also creating a transparent and empowering experience for the employee to have their voice heard in the evaluation process.
I have not dug into research to find support for my next claim, but I have a hunch that in developing systems to acknowledge and minimize biases in people-related systems (e.g hiring, promotions, and terminations), organizations might see positive impacts elsewhere, including an expansive mindset of how, and where, bias can seep into areas like sales practices, interactions with clients, and product development. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to consider that gendered biases related to employee performance can narrow beliefs related to “the business,” and how clients and markets are valued based on their genders (or perceived genders).
Comments