Presentation | April 2 | 4-6 p.m. | 2521 Channing Way (Inst. for Res. on Labor & Employment), IRLE Director’s Room
Shelley Correll, Professor of Sociology, Stanford University
Catherine Albiston, Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law; Trond Peterson, Professor of Sociology, and Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley
Do formal evaluation procedures really reduce bias? As an organizational practice, are they a smokescreen concealing bias or a great leveler that bolsters meritocracy?
While organizations formalize evaluation procedures to help achieve meritocratic outcomes, they often fail to eliminate bias in practice. Managers play a key role in applying such procedures, but researchers have been unable to observe the thought processes guiding managers decisions. In this talk, Correll will allow us to peer into managers heads through an analysis of the language they use when evaluating employees performance.
Using written performance reviews at a Fortune 500 technology company, Correll investigates whether gender stereotypes are reflected in managers reviews and whether language patterns are associated with gendered rating outcomes, which play an important role in determining pay and promotion decisions. While performance reviews contain clear descriptions of meritocratic factors, the research finds differences in the language used to describe men and womens performances. For example, women receive more vague feedback and more criticisms of their personalities, whereas men are described as more visionary. Further, some types of language, such as taking charge, are associated with the highest ratings for men but not women. These findings nuance the debate over whether formal procedures help reduce bias, and draw greater attention to the the ways in which organizational practices restrict gender equity in the workforce.
RSVP by calling Christina McKay at 510-643-8140, or by emailing Christina McKay at firstname.lastname@example.org