AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Struggle session noise7/31/2023 Next we observed some performance discussions at two companies in what are known as “calibration” or “talent review” meetings. Men were more likely to receive longer reviews that focused on their technical skills, compared to shorter reviews for women that were more concerned with their communication skills. Women were more likely to be told, for example, to “do more work in person” with no explanation about the issue to overcome or the goal of the change. In analyzing men’s and women’s written performance reviews, we discovered that women were more likely to receive vague feedback that did not offer specific details of what they had done well and what they could do to advance. We uncovered patterns of ambiguity in how performance reviews are written that can lead to a disadvantage for women. Our research team at the Stanford VMware Women’s Leadership Lab conducted in-depth studies of evaluation processes at three companies based in the U.S. As many studies have shown, without structure, people are more likely to rely on gender, race, and other stereotypes when making decisions – instead of thoughtfully constructing assessments using agreed-upon processes and criteria that are consistently applied across all employees.Īnd while ambiguity opens the door to bias, our research shows that individuals can take actions to reduce that ambiguity and be more objective when filling in the open box. The trouble is, when the context and criteria for making evaluations are ambiguous, bias is more prevalent. So when the form states “Describe the ways the employee’s performance met your expectations,” managers are expected to remember or figure out on their own what the specific expectations were for that particular employee. The ambiguity of these questions is by design: They are general and open-ended precisely because they must apply to everyone in the organization, regardless of level or function. The problem is the “open box.” Most forms ask managers broad questions about their employees-e.g., “Describe the ways the employee’s performance met your expectations” or “What are their significant accomplishments?”-and offer a blank space or open box that managers can fill with assessments, advice, and criticisms as they see fit. But while we may strive to be as meritocratic as possible, our assessments are imperfect and all too often biased.Īs innocuous as the typical form may seem, our research has found that it often allows for our implicit biases to creep in. Underlying this process is the belief that by reflecting on people’s performance and codifying it in an evaluation form, we will be able to assess their merits objectively, give out rewards fairly, and offer useful feedback to help them develop in the next year. Then managers write assessments of their work, offer feedback, and rate their performance on a scale of how well they met expectations. Although every organization relies on a different evaluation process, most follow a predictable pattern: First, they invite employees to write about their accomplishments and what they need to improve. Split with Die!ChiwawaDie! recorded Fall 2016 by Yang Haisong at Psychic Kong in Beijing, China.Īll tracks mixed and mastered by Fredrik Lyxzén at Parasite Studios in Umeå, Sweden.For many companies, performance review season is kicking off with the new year. Splits with TEST and Arryam recorded Fall 2017 by Kenny at Tiger Gate Studio in Beijing, China. Vocals recorded Fall 2018 by Kenny at Tiger Gate Studio in Beijing, China. Seoul Sessions instruments recorded Spring 2018 by Jeff at Thunderhorse Studios in Seoul, South Korea.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |