K-12 Education

Undergraduate
National Center for Women & Information Technology Career
Graduate
PROMISING PRACTICES Academic Career
Samples From the Work World
Two perspectives on identifying gender bias
I was employed as an IT program manager reporting to the Director
of Information Systems in one of the major businesses of our company.
When I took the position I was mainly recruited to manage a large IT
project that had previously been managed by two other people, and in
both cases had failed. The client (the sourcing manager of the company)
was not very happy, and my job was to turn things around. I took on
the project and completed it, managing in the process to turn around
the sourcing manager. The development work for the project was being
done in another country and so the project meant very many late nights/
early mornings communicating with the overseas team. During the
annual performance review process I was rated a “B” performer. “A” is
the highest rating and until then (and after then) I had always received
an “A”. I did not believe that the “B” was deserved and asked my manager
to explain his rationale for that evaluation. As part of the discussion, I
reminded him of what I believed my accomplishments were.
His response was that he knew I had turned the project around, but didn’t see me as being aggressive. He compared me to another manager, who
also reported to him - Mike. Mike was in his office bright and early every morning, and was extremely vocal. Mike had received an “A” evaluation.
He tried to assure me that a “B” was really not that bad, and not everyone could be an “A.” I was perplexed at his statements. I asked him how Mike
compared in actual work related performance, and how, he imagined without me being “aggressive” I could have affected such a turnaround in the
project. It seemed that I was being penalized for just getting on with my job and not spending “face” time making a big noise about it. He could
not articulate how Mike’s (work related) performance exceeded mine. I told him that I was formally disputing the evaluation and would need to
get a better explanation for the rationale for the “B.” He proved unable to provide an acceptable rationale and did in the end change my evaluation
to an “A.”
Very soon after that, I took another position in the company (but outside of IT). I chose to move on because I did not want to continue to work
for someone who was unable to see past surface level stereotypes and fairly assess good performance. Epilogue: In a round of layoffs that occurred
a few months after this incident, both this manager and Mike were laid off.

General Electric Links Their Performance Management System with Developing Women for Management
GE successfully implemented an initiative aimed particularly at the upward mobility of women. By linking the goals of its performance management
and succession planning system with those of the GE Women’s Network (GEWN), they increased the percentage of women corporate officers
and executives.
Each professional GE employee completes an online self-assessment that includes a resume, assessments of strengths and development needs,
career goals and desired opportunities, and a detailed report of annual achievements. Managers review the submitted information and meet with
the employee to discuss performance, career interests, and development needs. In the next step, leaders of business and functional units review the
aggregate results in view of diversity and business needs, as well as representation on business teams. They also target individuals for advancement
and specify necessary areas for development, many of which have already been scoped out in the discussion between the individual and his/her
manager. There are additional development options for women that may involve leadership roles in GEWN activities. The high-potential women
may also meet with senior executives at major networking events, and they may participate in GEWN-sponsored education opportunities aimed
particularly at women who wish to be upwardly mobile.
As a result of these efforts, the percentage of women corporate offices increased from 5 to 13 percent during the first four years of operation. During
the same period, the percentage of women at the senior executive band level increased from 9 to 14 percent, and the women at the executive band
level increased from 18 to 21 percent. This initiative earned GE the 2004 Catalyst Award. For further details about the award see:
http://www.catalyst.org/award/files/winners/2004General%20Electric.pdf
The GE initiative requires that all managers at the executive band level and above include at least one diverse candidate on their succession lists.

For More Information:

1 See K. M. Bartol (1999) “Gender influences on performance evaluations”, and with W. Aspray (2006) “The transition of women from the academic world to the IT workplace: A
review of relevant research”. Also see: DeNisi, A. S., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2000). “Design performance appraisal systems to improve performance” Heilman, M. E. (2001). “Description
and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s accent up the organizational ladder”.
 How can employers identify gender bias?
Spotting Gender Bias in the Performance Appraisal Process
Effective performance appraisal systems focus on performance improvement and help reduce the likelihood of gender bias. They include the five
major steps illustrated in Figure 1. Steps 1 through 3 are essential because in the absence of clear performance criteria and evidence, women are
often evaluated lower than men.
The last two steps address the main purposes of the process and Performance Appraisal Process
Provide
focus on outcomes. Both of these factors can ultimately affect developmental
actual performance. Women typically get fewer and less useful feedback
development opportunities, so their opportunities to improve Establish Measure or track Base
performance important judgments on
performance are also fewer. The result can undermine self-efficacy goals and established
behaviors and
(confidence in one’s ability to perform) and reduce perceptions of expectations accomplishments expectations Use as the
the performance-reward connection, which negatively influences basis for sound
administrative
future performance. decisions
Fault Line Factors
Even within a reasonably sound performance appraisal system, there are still conditions that can put women on a slower track. Three major
mechanisms for the creation of such fault lines are devaluation, demotivation, and demoralization.1
DEVALUATION DEMOTIVATION DEMORALIZATION
Stereotypes can lead to underrating women’s Performance appraisal can demotivate and Stereotypes can lead to the conscious (power
performance. They are triggered by situations in undermine future performance through: games) or subconscious creation of obstacles
which performance is ambiguous (so stereotypes for women, including:
fill the missing information) or in which women • Inadequate feedback
function in capacities that are incongruent • Insensitive feedback • Fewer resources allocated
with stereotypes about gender roles (so good • Less challenging assignments • Less competent staff assigned
performance is attributed to luck). Devaluation • Channeling to more gender • Business conducted where women
is particularly likely when women function in: congruent roles (e.g. staff and not welcome
service) • Isolation – provided less
• Line rather than staff positions • Lower rewards (“slightly less” information
• Positions normally held by males adds up) • Extremely difficult assignments
•Team situations with ambiguity • Slower promotions (“glass cliff ”)
about individual contributions • Doing well, but disliked because of
• Jobs in which performance is more gender incongruence
difficult to gauge (such as high level • Forced to fight for rights
managerial jobs)

Train Raters and Ratees

Training both the raters and ratees can help to reduce gender bias in performance appraisal processes. Both raters and ratees need strong goal-
setting skills so that expectations can be clarified at the beginning of the rating cycle. To be effective, goals must be challenging, but attainable,
specific and measurable, time-limited, and relevant to key aspects of the work at hand.
Raters benefit from training in how to accrue and evaluate performance data, as well as feedback-giving and coaching skills. Among other
things, raters should be taught to focus feedback on relevant behaviors and outcomes (rather than the person); deal with specific, observable
behaviors (rather than vague impressions); and preserve self-efficacy. They should also be taught to identify more effective behaviors and the
steps to achieving them, and to help forge overall development strategies. Finally, rater training should cover behaviors to avoid.
In addition to training in goal setting, ratees should be taught to increase their effectiveness by feedback-seeking skills aimed at improving
self-awareness and the ability to manage expectations. They could also benefit from negotiation training in order to gain better developmental
assignments and the resources to carry them out effectively.

National Center for Women & Information Technology

Revolutionizing the Face of Technology SM

K a thr yn M. B ar tol, author

www. nc w i t.o r g • N a ti o n a l C e n te r for Women & Informati on Technol ogy • copyri ght 2007