Well-Intentioned Bias Could Hinder Career Advancement
A new study led by Washington State University researchers has uncovered a concerning trend in performance evaluations: evaluators who want to avoid appearing prejudiced may give women inflated performance feedback. This practice, while seemingly well-intentioned, could ultimately hinder women’s professional growth and advancement.
The research, published in the Journal of Business and Psychology, investigates the connection between overly positive performance reviews and “protective paternalism,” the belief that women need to be handled carefully and shielded from harm.
Lead author Leah Sheppard, a researcher at WSU’s Carson College of Business, emphasizes the potential negative consequences of this practice: “If women don’t get honest feedback, they’re only going to fall further behind. That’s the clear, negative outcome. It’s never going to be the right thing, or even the kind thing to do, ultimately, to spare somebody from the obvious areas in which they need to improve.”
Key Findings from the Study
The research team conducted a series of studies to explore this phenomenon:
1. Analysis of music reviews: Examining three years of Rolling Stone magazine reviews, researchers found that women artists received more positive feedback than men for albums with the same star rating.
2. Two-part study with 486 participants:
– Participants were first surveyed on their motivation to appear nonprejudiced toward women.
– They then provided feedback on hypothetical employee performance scenarios, first with a gender-neutral employee and later with gendered names.
Results showed that participants with a stronger external motivation to avoid appearing prejudiced reported a greater desire to protect women employees from harm. This “protective paternalism” predicted more positive feedback for women compared to the gender-neutral scenario, regardless of the evaluator’s own gender.
Why it matters: This research highlights a potential unintended consequence of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. If such programs create an atmosphere where people fear criticizing certain groups, it could ultimately harm the careers of those the efforts aim to help.
Sheppard notes, “We are starting to see more conversations around what we’re doing with DEI programs. Are we actually making a better space for people that have been historically marginalized? If we’re not doing that, and we’re actually just instilling fear in people, we’ve got to kind of go back to the drawing board and figure it out.”
The findings suggest a need to reevaluate how performance evaluations are conducted and framed. Potential solutions proposed by the researchers include:
1. Providing evaluators with information on the importance of constructive negative feedback.
2. Reframing the evaluation process, moving away from terms like “performance appraisal” to more supportive language like “coaching” or “mentoring.”
3. Normalizing the discussion of areas for improvement across all employees.
As organizations strive to create more inclusive workplaces, this research underscores the importance of ensuring that well-intentioned efforts don’t inadvertently create new barriers to advancement. By addressing these subtle biases and promoting honest, constructive feedback for all employees, companies can better support the genuine growth and development of their diverse workforce.
