Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Assignment-On--Quot--Gender-Issues-In-P 👈

1. Assignment on
“ Gender Issues in
Performance Appraisal“
United International University
Course Code: PGD 1223 Performance
Appraisal Management, PGD HRM
Nurunnahar Dipa

2. Definition of Gender:
Culturally and socially constructed
difference between men and women (as
indicated by terms such as 'gender affairs'
and 'gender politics') that varies from
place to place and time to time. In
comparison, 'sex' denotes biologically
determined, thus unchangeable,
difference between them.
Introduction
Any organizations’ staffing consists of (in generally) male and female. The success of the
organization is solely depending on the capability and productivity of its staffing. The
obvious goal of any staffing is to ensure that a superior workforce is placed into the
organization. Though most companies are enjoying the benefits of gender diversity,
unfortunately many organizations frequently risk making decisions about who should go and
who should stay without the benefit of a clear vision as to what is really required for the long-
term success of the organization. Even in the area where gender is not correlated with task
performance; still, gender stereotypes had a strong and significant impact on evaluators’
candidate assessments. Any negative evaluations which are perceived as unjust are often
followed by loss of motivation and performance.
Motivated staffs are a central resource for the success of an organization. It is the task of staff
management to recognize, deploy and promote the working potential of all staff members in
such a way that it makes an effective contribution to the objectives of the organization.
What is crucial here is to cover the quantitative and qualitative staffing requirements of the
organization, not only currently but also in a permanent and sustained way. Another
important factor is the activation of the abilities of staff and the development of a motivating
organizational culture. Part of this task falls to staff development, which is involved with the
development of potential and the qualification of new and existing staff.
The key to minimizing these risks is
implementing a systematic approach that is fair,
job-related, and legally defensible. This process
is commonly known as Performance Appraisal.
Performance Appraisal is the systematic
evaluation of the performance of employees and
to understand the abilities of a person for further
growth and development.
It can also be referred as a performance review,
performance evaluation, (career) development discussion, or employee appraisal etc.
Performance Appraisal is a central element in staff development. It is used for staff and
career planning, determined the performance-related component of salaries and
communicates specific organizational and operational values to staff.
It is said that performance appraisal is an investment for the company which can be justified
by advantages like Promotion, Compensation, Employees Development, Selection
Validation, Effective Communication and Motivation of an employee.

3. Through this process, companies and organizations have the opportunity to increase the
strength and diversity of their talent pipelines, and ensure success by promoting the strongest
employees. This is an equally important process for employees, as it also is a time when their
value to the company is validated and when the futures of their careers are determined.
But most of the time the Performance Appraisal process of organization is unable to judge its
staffs from prejudice and discrimination. One of the susceptible areas of Performance
Appraisal is Gender-Specific Bias.
The purpose of this assignment is to look at the Gender issues in the Performance
Appraisal process.

4. 1. A general overview on the Gender biasness and performance
Gender-based discrimination in hiring, promotion, and job assignments is difficult to
overcome (e.g., Neumark, Bank, and Van Nort [1996]; Riach and Rich [2002]). In addition to
conscious taste-based or statistical discrimination (Becker 1978), recent evidence suggests
that gender biases are automatically activated as soon as evaluators learn the sex of a person.
These biases lead to unintentional and implicit discrimination that is not based on a rational
assessment of the usefulness of sex in predicting future performance (e.g., Banaji and
Greenwald [1995]; Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwarz [1998]; Bertrand, Chugh, and
Mullainathan [2005].)
In hiring decisions, and particularly at more junior levels, it is common for candidates to be
subject to “joint evaluation.” Interviewing various candidates at the entry-level stage (for
positions as analysts, programmers, or assistant professors, for example), organizations
explicitly compare them with one another. By contrast, job assignments and promotion
decisions are typically made on an individual basis, or through “separate evaluation”: a
manager is evaluated on whether she is ready to work on a more complex project, an attorney
is assessed on whether he should be promoted to partner, or a junior faculty member is
reviewed on whether she will be granted tenure.
It is at these more senior levels where the gender gap in economic participation is most
pronounced (Bertrand and Hallock 2001). In Fortune 500 companies, for example, only 3.6
percent of CEOs, 14.1 percent of executive officers, and 16.1 percent of board members were
female in 2011,2 when at the same time, women made up 46.7 percent of the U.S. labor force
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011.) Gender differences in business-critical job assignments
and promotions have been identified as contributing to the gender gap in career advancement
(Ginther and Kahn 2009; Ibarra, Carter and Silva 2010; Zahidi and Ibarra 2010), in addition
to supply-side factors, such as gender differences in training and time devoted to the job
(Bertrand, Goldin, and Katz 2010).
Women hold 15 percent of the seats on corporate boards and 14 percent of those on executive
committees in the United States; 16 percent and 3 percent, respectively, in Germany; 20
percent and 8 percent, respectively, in France; and less than 10 percent on both boards and
executive committees in China, India, and Japan. In Scandinavia, the numbers are higher:
Norway’s representation is currently at 35 percent and 15 percent, respectively; Sweden’s at
25 percent and 21 percent, respectively (exhibit).
Many companies, particularly in North America and Europe, are pursuing an arsenal of
measures aimed at easing women’s progress through the organization. Such measures include
efforts to make appraisals objective and unbiased; the adoption of diversity targets; greater
flexibility in remote working; smoother transitions before, during, and after maternity leave;
and executive coaching for high-potential vice presidents. Based on a survey on the 235

5. The best rating models are inclusive of
different styles of leadership and
delivery, are measurable and objective,
and are tested on a diversity of
employees in the organization. These
models provide the structure and
framework within which performance
management occurs.
European companies, it has found that more than 60 percent told us they have at least 20
gender diversity initiatives in place.
Much of the global research on bias is focused on gender. Although the principles expressed
here are applicable to any number of identity related issues, we will use this study as a means
to understand how bias manifests daily in the workplace and influences the careers of those
affected. An Australian consulting firm, UGM Consulting explored why so few women
advanced to the top of Australian organizations. In observing in-person performance reviews
between men, compared to between men and women, the researchers found that:
 Reviews between men were likely to be collegial, relaxed, focused on the future, and
used the pronoun “we”.
 Reviews between men and women with men as the manager were more focused on
performance and less on career development, and used the pronoun “you”.
The UGM study discussed how the rater unconsciously approached reviews with greater
comfort when conversing with employees of the same gender than those of the opposite, and
how that ultimately impacted the rating and the employees’ advancement.
There are other ways in which a Rater’s bias can affect the outcome of a performance
review. For example, the manager might not feel comfortable with the review process. This
may be attributed to their discomfort with giving feedback, personality differences between
the manager and the employee, or simply because the manager was distracted during the
review process. No matter the reason, the review will disadvantage the one being rated, and
both the employee as well as the group with the associated stereotype may receive “penalties”
that impact them personally.
Beyond the biases that reside in individuals, biases that are found in and reinforced by the
organizational structure also can be detrimental to the strength of a diverse talent pipeline.
Although many of these structural inequities are unintentional, they nevertheless can have a
very real and profound influence on the daily realities and career paths of affected employees.
Every organization has a rating model by
which people at different levels are measured.
This rating model is typically based on
leadership and individual contributor
competencies that have been developed and
tested in the organization over time.
Structural bias can affect talent management
not only in the groups it limits, but also in the groups it enables. From various studies and
observations, it has found that women are more likely to underrate on self-assessments while
men more likely to overrate. Women tend to give more credit to their team, and men may
unconsciously take personal credit for the team’s work. While this appears to be

6. fundamentally based on hormonal differences between the sexes1
, other factors that
differentiate a minority group from a majority group may have similar impacts upon an
individual’s self-assessment. Structural bias, by accepting these micro-inequities as norms,
allows unconscious selecting of certain groups to take place. Consequentially, the continual
selection of favoured individuals encourages homogeneity and obstructs the performance
management process as a whole.
2. In Performance Appraisal System, which stages is Gender and
Performance cross cut themselves?
From Pre requisites to Performance rewards, at any of the stages mentioned below, gender
can be affected.
1. in staff planning
2. in staff recruitment and selection,
3. in the evaluation and payment of work,
4. in staffing and evaluation of performance,
5. in training and
6. in the organization of work.
Quality can be assured only by gaining freedom from discrimination and orientation to
gender equality in all the stages mentioned above.
3. How Performance Appraisal Team can control this in time of PA?
The task of non-discriminatory performance evaluation is to control and avoid gender-
specific colouring and bias. The organization should keep in mind the following questions in
time of a Performance appraisal:
a. How can evaluation processes be designed in such a way that discrimination due to
gender can be avoided?
b. Which evaluation criteria facilitate a result that takes proper account of gender issues?
c. How can those doing the evaluation (Evaluator/ Rater) and those being evaluated
(staffs) be made aware of their own patterns of perception in the process?
In order to overcome discriminatory evaluations, criteria must be worked out; processes must
be changed and Evaluators/ Raters (those doing the evaluating) and those being evaluated
must be sensitized to gender aspects. The background for these is:
1
Louann Brizendine, The Female Brain (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007)

7. a. Firstly, the evaluation criteria (in any of the above stages 1 to 6) may be influenced by
social and organisationally-specific expectations and patterns of perception, known as
stereotypes, which are gender-specific in character from the outset. This effect is
reinforced by the focus on personal qualities as a subject of evaluation.
b. Secondly, the evaluation process is subject to very strongly subjective colourings by
both those doing the evaluating and those being evaluated. In many cases, the
evaluation depends to a not inconsiderable degree on the self-perception and self-
presentation of performance- relevant criteria by those being evaluated. Both
frequently result in significant bias effects with the corresponding consequences for
performance.
A. Revision of criteria:
a. Checking the selected evaluation criteria for susceptibility to stereotyping
interpretations; for example, women and men are frequently assumed per se to have
different levels of performance in criteria such as “willingness to perform”,
“creativity”, “communicative ability”, etc.
b. Creating transparent evaluation criteria which treat competencies that are traditionally
stereotyped as male or female equally and with equal weighting
c. Ceasing to evaluate personal qualities and instead concentrating on actual behavior
and concrete work results.
B. Changing processes:
a. Creation of a broad basis for evaluation by means of for example regular staff and
goal agreement interviews
b. Creation of participation possibilities for those under evaluation within the context of
the evaluation process with opportunities for appeal
c. Granting support services for all involved for example in the form of external
consultancy
d. Involvement of several persons in the evaluation process – for example works
councils and staff councils, equal opportunity commissioners, other staff members,
clients, etc. (e.g. 360° feedback)
 Introduction of upwards evaluation for example management feedback
 Creation of bodies with balanced membership with control function
Few more processes
There are also other ways to decrease the role of gender biases in the evaluation of candidates
such as blind evaluation procedures (Goldin and Rouse 2000) and gender quotas on
hiring and promotion committees (Bagues and Essteve-Volart 2010; Zinovyeva and
Bagues 2010).
Also the process of “evaluation nudge,” in which people are evaluated jointly rather than
separately regarding their future performance. Organizations may seek to overcome biases in
job assignment and promotion because they want to maximize economic returns. They may

8. worry about the inaccuracy of stereotypes in predicting future productivity, or they may hold
gender equality as a goal in itself. If so, they may be able to nudge evaluators toward taking
individual performance information into account rather than gender stereotypes by
introducing joint rather than separate evaluation procedures.
C. Sensitization of those involved:
 Sensitization of those involved to possible gender discrimination (awareness training)
and creation of gender competence by means of consultancy and training (skill
building training)
 Robust evaluation process to recognize gender-specific bias effects as early as
possible
How to mitigate an Evaluator/ Rater Bias?
Raters must engage themselves to recognize any potential bias well before the review process
begins. Recognizing our biases and their power over our decision-making gives us the
opportunity to pause, question, and reassess our decisions so we may strive for objectivity.
Managers with deciding power over the diversity pipeline as well as the potential career paths
of employees are especially responsible for managing their biases.
For every decision made in the performance management process, whether it involves giving
ratings, providing feedback, or having a career development conversation, it is essential that
the manager ask him or herself:
 What kind of biases have I experienced myself? How has that affected me?
 What part of my own agenda is being served by this decision?
 Does this employee or their situation remind me of someone else? Is that association
applicable to this situation?
 Are there differences in work style or approach between me and the person I am
evaluating? If so, are they wrong, or just different? Might they yield the same results?
Can these differences influence my rating of the employee?
 What do I imagine are this employee’s career development aspirations? Is this what I
imagine, or what he or she has told me?
 What strategies and tactics can I put in place to engage fully and consciously, putting
my filters aside?
Answering these questions honestly will provide the manager with insight into his or her own
biases, and how they affect decisions in the performance review process.
How to mitigate an Organizational Bias?
It is incumbent upon the work unit and the organization overall to bring clarity to the
weighting of contribution areas in order to ensure that their evaluation is equivalent for
employees across the organization. For example, consider an organization that has rating
areas about profitability, effective

9. running of business units, building culture, and developing people. Clarity and transparency
about the relative importance of each will ensure greater equity in performance reviews,
especially in the calibration process.
Additionally, the work unit and organization must question whether the values that get
reflected in these contribution areas contain any kind of inherent gender or cultural bias. For
example, men tend to have more opportunities to develop their skills in running profit and
loss (P&L) center and business operations. If these skill sets are highly valued and weighted
heavily, there can be a fundamental structural bias against women. The same must be
examined for ethnic minorities or other non-dominant groups.
Few tips to reduce Organizational Biasness:
 Have clear and transparent rating areas and weighting processes. When unmanaged,
personal preferences of leaders as to which contribution areas are most important
become part of the structural bias.
 Understand that every organization has an image of a leader. Structural inequities can
reinforce this image through biased competency models and contribution areas,
penalizing non dominant groups.
 Leaders must evaluate whether or not their competency models are inclusive.
 All members must clearly understand how the rating areas are weighted in the final
evaluation, and whether everyone weights them equally.
 Identify any gender or cultural biases that are inherent in the organization and how
they may be impacting the objectivity of the reviews.
 Expose these structural biases prior to performance reviews and continually address
them throughout the review process.

10. References:
 Leslie Traub (2013), Bias in Performance Management Review Process Creating an
Inclusive Talent Pipeline by Understanding our Filters, Cook Ross Inc.
 Iris Bohnet, Alexandra van Geen, Max H. Bazerman; When Performance Trumps
Gender Bias: Joint versus Separate Evaluation, Harvard Kennedy School, 79 JFK
Street, Cambridge
 Louann Brizendine (2007), The Female Brain , New York: Three Rivers Press
 UGM Consulting, Sydney, Australia, August 2010. http://www.ugmconsulting.com/
 http://www.hr.com/SITEFORUM
 http://www.mckinsey.com
 http://www.genderkompetenz.info
 www.businessdictionary.com
 http://www.genderkompetenz.info