Companies looking to increase their strength, agility, and marketplace positioning intentionally invest in their people. With the rise of employee engagement mechanisms, including but not limited to leadership programs, formalized stretch projects, and managerial training, more than ever, organizations are giving their people the toolsets to be successful. These initiatives can be seen from face value as tactics to minimize bias or level the playing field. However, the criteria by which individuals are recognized as ideal participants or higher performers in the company is often the same – the performance review.

The performance review, or performance appraisal/evaluation, is a formal assessment in which a manager evaluates an employee’s work performance, identifies strengths and weaknesses, offers feedback, and sets goals for future performance. The performance review is praised for its ability to align expectations, improve performance, and the potential to accelerate an employee’s career. People and culture leaders view this method as a way to streamline promotions and salary increases that were once subjective, which research shows opens the door for more risk. While a formalized method of promotion is better than nothing, this evaluation method has longstanding shortcomings. For years research has noted that performance review outcomes are associated with societal biases. Often entrenched with gender biases and racial disparities, this seemingly perceived impartial evaluation method can be detrimental to the progression of women and people of color within organizations, ultimately acting in opposition to its very existence.

In recent times, performance reviews have become more of a priority in the world of sports. Similarly, unconscious bias training is being offered at record rates. However, the assumption that unconscious bias training prevents these discriminatory dispositions from arising is false. Most training can raise people's awareness of their unconscious biases, but evidence shows that training alone is ineffective in changing behavior. Especially ones that are often historically entrenched throughout the lifecycle of an employee, dating as far back as their early educational days. To better understand Corporate America’s flaws, we must go back to the systematic ways we grow people’s awareness—education. Understanding how bias in education shows up in Corporate America will provide the precursory understanding of how deep this problem goes.

K-12:

We know that teens and adults can show bias against those from other identities, but the thought of young children having this ability would leave some perplexed.  A new study finds that children as young as preschoolers show bias. Young children are astutely observing the world around them. Interactions at home, school, or even television, can have pernicious effects on how they perceive gender and race. Mamie Phipps Clark’s “Clark doll test” is first attributed to the acknowledgment of racial biases. While the 1940s tests continue to be cited as evidence of such a phenomenon, detractors would argue that the way of the world during this time is different from today.

To challenge this notion, a 2019 scholarly article found that bias that existed in the 1940s still exists today. Within this research, 4-year-olds were given both implicit and explicit bias tests. Using the implicit bias test commonly given to adults, researchers found that the children rated images of black boys less favorably than white boys and girls, with images of black girls falling in the middle. One would assume that in-group favoritism would yield the results that non-white children would favor non-white images and white children would favor white images, but that was not the case. White and non-white children show the same patterns of racial bias, suggesting that gendered racial bias mirrors social biases observed in adults. Lastly, the research highlights that “children showed the same intersectional pattern of bias on both implicit and explicit tasks; their implicit and explicit biases were not correlated.”

This research underscores the importance of addressing bias within children early on. But the question remains, can teachers help mitigate this bias if these efforts don’t take place at home?  In theory, the answer would be yes, but in practice, teachers also have biases, many of which align with the biases found in the Clark study and the 2019 research outlined above. Brookings found that Educator bias is associated with racial disparities in student achievement and discipline. From a disciplinary standpoint, many heard the phrase, “boys will be boys.” This phrase has been used to pardon any undesirable behavior and dangerously categorize aggressive and unapologetic behavior as “typical male traits.” They’re not.

A 2019 edition of the Educational Researcher study found that “teachers evaluated students’ performance equally along racial and gender lines but assumed that girls — and especially girls of color — had lower math abilities than boys and white boys.”  The lowest-rated group was always females of color. Lastly, professor David Quinn asked some 1,500 teachers to participate in an experiment on judging student writing and gave each of them a writing sample from a hypothetical 2nd grader. He used identical samples for a critical detail—the name in the prompt. One writer described his day with his brother, Connor, a name more often associated with White children. The other spent his day with his brother, Dashawn, suggesting a Black author. What was found was that about 35 percent of the teachers who received vague guidance on judging the prompts decided that Connor’s brother was on grade level, compared to 30 percent for Dashawn’s brother. The bias was most substantial among teachers who are White and who are female, of whom make up the majority of the U.S. teaching force.

College:

So far, we have found that young children are impressionable and are gaining a sense of bias from the world around them, including their educators. Educators’ bias regarding who’s “good” and “intelligent” often continues to permeate young adults' minds unconsciously. These biases based on race and gender can be seen in postsecondary education, particularly in evaluating professor or teacher aid performances by their students.

In late October 2022, Inside higher education suggests that “two new studies show how bias against women in student ratings operates over time, worsening with critical feedback and instructor age.” Both studies “suggest that as women become more “agentic,” demonstrating agency via stereotypically male-associated traits; they are punished for violating gender norms with lower student ratings.” Additionally, as women become more senior in their career, in theory gaining more experience, the study found that for “women, being middle-aged also was associated with higher perceived communal deficits (such as being less warm), and this corresponded with lower performance evaluations.” This was not an occurrence that men experienced.

This study matters because, like performance reviews, student evaluations of teaching (SET) are used widely in hiring, promoting, and firing instructors. Longstanding research has shown that women and people of color may receive harsher faculty evaluations than white men, but the same can be found in TAs.  Female students were more likely to give negative evaluations when their TA was female. All female students assigned to the fake male profile gave a positive assessment. What might come as a surprise here is the notion of intersex bias. In 2016, Forbes summarized findings from leadership consultancy Skyline International’s workplace trends. “Sindell and her team surveyed more than 1,000 professionals on leadership qualities and in doing so found that, in their survey, women rated the effectiveness of other women lower 57% of the time for workplace competencies, compared to men at 14%.”

Though the study fails to showcase the root causes of this outcome, one can attribute societal pressures. Dr. Shawn Andrews outlines four potential reasons, all of which are fueled by societal inequities and subconscious learnings that lead to Why Women Don't Always Support Other Women.

1. “Power dead-even rule” - a term coined by Pat Heim and colleagues in Hardball for Women: Winning at the Game of Business. Is an invisible natural law in the female "culture" that helps to shape how women interact with other women at work and in their personal lives.
2. Women at higher leadership levels tend to display more male-specific EQ competencies, such as assertiveness and confidence, and leverage less female-specific EQ competencies, such as interpersonal relationships and empathy. For women at the top, part of their success is convincing men that they aren't like other women.
3. The “only” syndrome powered by competition for "spots" occurs when there are few females in an organization or few females in leadership roles.
4. Obstacles women face in their career and corporate environments, and the achievement of hard-fought success, their attitude toward other women is "I figured it out, you should too.”

Unlike gender bias in academia, there is less research on racial disparities in student evaluations. However, with the information we know, faculty members of color tend to be poorly evaluated. According to a study, “Black and Asian professors tend to be evaluated more poorly than their white peers, with Black men faring worst. Faculty members with accents and Asian last names are also penalized. Latinx women are judged more harshly than white women.” Additionally, “some evidence suggests that LGBTQ professors fare worse than their peers. Still, there is almost no research on other intersectional identities, including disability and pregnancy.”

Corporate America:

Today, one of the most comprehensive research reports on performance reviews found that many of the biases within the education and post-secondary education sector remain true. The report, from augmented writing software company Textio, includes survey data (from spring 2022) indicating that “the people most underrepresented in business, and especially in leadership, report receiving lower quality feedback.” Specifically, significant demographic biases were found amongst women, people of color, and older workers compared to white, Asian men, and younger workers.

Among the report’s noteworthy findings:

• Regardless of the organization or documented culture on feedback, the demographic inequalities appear consistent through the data.
• Employees who receive high-quality performance feedback grow faster, earn more, and get promoted more quickly than those who don’t. The data suggest that demographics that receive the least actionable feedback tend to those from underrepresented groups. For every piece of inactionable feedback received by white men under 40, women over 40 receive 4.4; Black women (across age groups) receive 8.8.
• Women get 22% more written personality feedback than men, including positive and negative feedback. Asian workers receive less personality feedback than any other racial group. Black men get the least written feedback; younger workers receive more feedback than those over 30.
• Women are seven times more likely to report being described as opinionated and 11 times more likely to report being described as abrasive.
• Black and Latinx people report being described as “passionate” (frequently a euphemism for “can’t get along with others”) 2.1x as often.
• White people report being described as ambitious 4.9 times more often than Black people and 7.1 times more than Asian people. People under 40 report being called ambitious 2.5 times more often than their older coworkers. Women, Black and Latinx people and those over 30 tend to receive the most exaggerated feedback.
  • Exaggerated feedback includes words like: never, always, or constantly.
  • While sometimes well-intentioned, exaggerated feedback on employee performance has been known to reduce public confidence in the findings.

Textio’s report is critical as it illuminates that the language used in performance reviews can be gender-biased and racially discriminatory. Let’s look at the conversation around our now Vice President of the United States. Although this was not a traditional performance review, Kamala Harris’s fit for VP was questioned because of her ambition. Articles such as CNBC quote, “Some also argue that she’s too ambitious and will be solely focused on eventually becoming president.” While Bloomberg outright titled the opinion piece, Is Kamala Harris too Ambitious to Be Vice President? Her ambitious efforts deemed her as a problem. This further emphasizes the frustrating journey of “pet to threat” Black women face.

Within the performance review process, people are often held to KPIs. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable or qualitative, specific measures of an organization’s performance. When KPIs are the sole focus of the business and negate to include cultural aspects of the company, we often overlook and underrecognize the additional impact that women and people of color have on business. According to the 2022 Women in the workplace study, women managers tend to invest more in people management and DEI. They found that “employees with women managers are more likely to say their manager checks in on their well-being, helps them manage their workload, and promotes inclusive behavior on their team.”  Additionally, “40% of women leaders say their DEI work isn’t acknowledged in performance reviews, although women leaders are 2x as likely as men leaders to spend substantial time on DEI work.” Suppose performance reviews attribute this work as a KPI. In that case, one could assume “women managers are more likely to be recognized for their efforts—which could lead to higher performance ratings, faster advancement, and higher pay.”  

Performance reviews have long been standard operating procedures and still have a place within the business. This article's point was to illuminate how bias can creep into something individuals often think is subjective. Hence, people and culture leaders and managers must become well-versed in subtle nuances of language within these evaluations and broader social interactions. As well as understanding that individuals have been conditioned to believe certain beliefs, which will intentionally require unlearning—many executive-level DEI practitioners are ready and able to assist with this.

It might seem overwhelming for those with a traditional performance review system to overhaul the process after fighting for years to get it in place. I charge you all to think about systematic overhauls that can lead to some mitigation of bias. Here are a few suggestions:

• Your review framework – does your criterion of success tie cohesively to your organization's culture and core values? Is there some understanding of what it means to be a successful employee within the organization? What are the desired competencies you wish to see within the organization?
• Clearly outline a pathway to success – if using a rubric, ensure a level of sophistication that robustly outlines the difference between levels, outlining performance at criterion. This must be explicitly stated.
  • Example: The manager analyzes direct supervisees’ progress data to plan differentiated feedback, including intervention and enrichment opportunities.
• Understanding this is a two-way street: managers and supervisees need to be held accountable for the development plans in front of them. These efforts cannot solely fall on those with less power in the dynamic. Managers/leadership must engage and be held accountable for their performance and their abilities to grow, nurture, and support staff.
• Create avenues for “additional efforts” to be recognized or ensure professional growth and development as a dedicated part of the process.

‍