Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Subjective Performance Evaluation and Gender Discrimination

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gender discrimination continues to be a problem in organizations. It is therefore important that organizations use performance evaluation methods that ensure equal opportunities for men and women. This article reports the results of an experiment to investigate whether and, if so, how the gender of the rater and that of the ratee moderate the relationship between the level of subjectivity in performance appraisals and organizational attractiveness. Participants in the experiment were 313 undergraduate students. We predicted, and indeed established, that as the probability increases that employee performance is evaluated by a female manager, women expect more positive outcomes of subjective, but not objective evaluation processes. Our data did not support our expectation that as the probability of being evaluated by a female manager increases, men expect less positive outcomes of subjective evaluation processes. The findings of this study contribute to our understanding of why women are over-represented in jobs with objective formula-based reward systems, such as piece-rate systems. They are also of interest to organizations that are looking for more ethical human resource management practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arvey, R.D. and K.R. Murphy: 1998, ‘Performance Evaluation in Work Settings’, Annual Review of Psychology 49, 141-168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, G., R. Gibbons, and K.J. Murphy: 1994, ‘Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 109, 1125-1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, G., M.C. Jensen, and K.J. Murphy: 1988, ‘Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory’, The Journal of Finance 43(3), 593-616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, W.K. and L.M. Sulsky: 1992, ‘Halo and Performance Appraisal Research: A Critical Examination’, Journal of Applied Psychology 77, 975-975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, C.C. and B.B. Baltes: 2002, ‘Reducing the Effects of Gender Stereotypes on Performance Evaluations’ Sex Roles 47(9-10), 465-476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M.P., M.E. McLaughlin and J.M. Sequira: 2002, ‘Discrimination, Harassment, and the Glass Ceiling: Women Executives as Change Agents’ Journal of Business Ethics 37, 65-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, F.D. and L.M. Kahn: 2006, ‘The US Gender Pay Gap in the 1990 s: Slowing Convergence’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 60(1), 45-66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borna, S. and G. White: 2003, ‘“Sex” and “Gender”: Two Confused and Confusing Concepts in the “Women in Corporate Management” Literature’, Journal of Business Ethics 47, 89-99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C.: 1990, ‘Firms’ Choice of Method of Pay’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43(3), S165-S182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castilla, E.: 2008, ‘Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers’, American Journal of Sociology 113(6), 1479-1526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, H.K. and M.J. Burke: 2000, ‘Sex Discrimination in Simulated Employment Contexts: A Meta-analytic Investigation’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 56(2), 225-248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demuijnck, G.: 2009, ‘Non-Discrimination in Human Resources Management as a Moral Obligation’, Journal of Business Ethics 88, 83-101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, G.E.: 2003, ‘Breaking the Glass Ceiling: The Effects of Sex Ratios and Work-Life Programs on Female Leadership at the Top’, Human Relations 56(5), 541-562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elvira, M. and R. Town: 2001, ‘The Effects of Race and Worker Productivity on Performance Evaluations’, Industrial Relations 40(4), 571-590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, T. and J.S. Heywood: 2006, ‘Output Pay and Ethnic Wage Differentials: Canadian Evidence’, Industrial Relations 45(2), 173-194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, M., K.A. Merchant, W.A. Van der Stede and M.E. Vargus: 2004, ‘Determinants and Effects of Subjectivity in Incentives’, The Accounting Review 79(2), 409-436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J.: 1986, ‘Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations’, Journal of Applied Psychology 71(2), 340-342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, M.: 1975, ‘Male-Female Wage Differentials and the Impact of Equal Pay Legislation’, Review of Economics and Statistics 57, 462-469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, V., D. Turban and N. Bhawe: 2008, ‘The Effect of Gender Stereotype Activation on Entrepreneurial Intentions’, Journal of Applied Psychology 93(5), 1053-1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M.: 1994, ‘Rater Motivation in the Performance-Appraisal Context - A Theoretical Framework’, Journal of Management 20(4), 737-756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, J.S. and U. Jirjahn: 2002, ‘Payment Schemes and Gender in Germany’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(1), 44-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, J.S. and P.L. O’Halloran: 2005, ‘Racial Earnings Differentials and Performance Pay’, The Journal of Human Resources 40(2), 435-452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, J. S., P. L. O’Halloran (2006) Market Structure, Payment Methods, and Racial Earnings Differences. In J. S. Heywood, J. H. Peoples (eds.), Product Market Structure and Labor Market Discrimination (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY), pp. 59-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, J.S. and X.D. Wei: 1997, ‘Piece-rate Payment Schemes and the Employment of Women: The Case of Hong Kong’, Journal of Comparative Economics 25(2), 237-255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C.D. and D.F. Larcker: 1998, ‘Innovations in Performance Measurement: Trends and Research Implications’, Journal of Management Accounting Research 10, 205-239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C.D. and D.F. Larcker: 2002, ‘Determinants of Performance Measure Choices in Worker Incentive Plans’, Journal of Labor Economics 20(2), S58-S90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C.D., D.F. Larcker and M.W. Meyer: 2003, ‘Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard’, The Accounting Review 78(3), 725-758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, R. and S.W.J. Kozlowski: 1985, ‘A Closer Look at Halo Error in Performance Ratings’ Academy of Management Journal 28(1), 201-212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. and R.H. Searle: 2004, ‘Harnessing Diversity and Collective Action in the Top Management Team’, Long Range Planning 37(5), 399-419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I.M.: 2005, ‘Do Raters Consider the Influence of Situational Factors on Observed Performance when Evaluating Performance? Evidence from Three Experiments’, Group and Organization Management 30(1), 6-41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I.M. and C.R. Williams: 1997, ‘Where All the Children are Above Average: The Performance Appraisal Purpose Effect’, Personnel Psychology 50(4), 905-925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jirjahn, U. and G. Stephan: 2004, ‘Gender, Piece Rates and Wages: Evidence from Matched Employer-Employee Data’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 28(5), 683-704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jirjahn, U., G. Stephan (2006) Gender and Wages in Germany: The Impact of Product Market Competition and Collective Bargaining. In: J. S. Heywood, J. H. Peoples (eds.), Product Market Structure and Labor Market Discrimination. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 59-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C. and O. A. M. Fisscher: 2003, ‘Ethical dilemmas in performance measurement’, Journal of Business Ethics 45(1-2), 51-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lance C.E., J.A. LaPointe and S.A. Fisicaro: 1994, ‘Tests of Three Causal Models of Halo Rater Error’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57(1), 83-96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F.J., J.L Barnes and K.R. Murphy: 1978, ‘Correlates of Perceived Fairness and Accurate Performance Evaluation’, Journal of Applied Psychology 63(6), 751-754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P.E. and J.R. Williams: 2004, ‘The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future’, Journal of Management 30(6), 881-905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, L.L. and C.K. Parsons: 2007, ‘Effects of Gender Diversity Management on Perceptions of Organizational Attractiveness: The Role of Individual Differences in Attitudes and Beliefs’, Journal of Applied Psychology 92(3), 865-875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, T. J. and M. A. Taylor: 1994, ‘Is Sex by Itself Enough - An Exploration of Gender Bias Issues in Performance-Appraisal’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60(2), 231-251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moers, F.: 2005, ‘Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity’, Accounting Organizations and Society 30(1), 67-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R. and J. Cleveland: 1995, Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-based Perspectives (Sage Publications, Thousand oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngo, H., S. Foley, A. Wong and R. Loi: 2003, ‘Who Gets More of the Pie? Predictors of Perceived Gender Inequity at Work’, Journal of Business Ethics 45(3), 227-241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, P. and J. C. Turner: 1986: ‘Distinctiveness and the Salience of Social Category Memberships: Is There an Automatic Perceptual Bias Towards Novelty?’, European Journal of Social Psychology 16(4), 325-344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olian, J., D. Schwab and Y. Haberfeld: 1988, ‘The Impact of Applicant Gender Compared to Qualifications on Hiring Recommendations - A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 41(2), 180-195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, C.L. and T.D. Todor: 1993, ‘Attitudes towards Women as Managers: Still the Same’, Business Horizons 36(2), 12-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, L.H., E.J. O’Connor, J. Weekley, A.F.B. Pooyan and B. Erenkrantz: 1984, ‘Sex Bias and Managerial Evaluations: A Replication and Extension’, Journal of Applied Psychology 69(2), 349-352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, C., and R. Topel: 1993, ‘Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation’, European Economic Review 37, 355-365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E.D., L.A.White, S.H. Oppler and W.C. Borman: 1989, ‘Examination of Race and Sex Effects on Performance Ratings’, Journal of Applied Psychology 74(5), 770-780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, T.L. and A.S. Denisi: 1993, ‘Moderators of Sex Bias in the Performance-Appraisal Process: A Cognitive Analysis’, Journal of Management 19(1), 113-126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwoerer, C. and B. Rosen: 1989, ‘Effects of employment-at-will policies and compensation policies on corporate image and job pursuit intentions’, Journal of Applied Psychology 74(4), 653-656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P.E.: 1988, ‘Development of the Work Locus of Control Scale’, Journal of Occupational Psychology 61(4), 335-340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swim, J.K. and L.L. Cohen: 1997, ‘Overt, Covert, and Subtle Sexism’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 21, 103-118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S.E: 1981, ‘A Categorization Approach to Stereotyping’, in D.L. Hamilton (ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ), 83–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terborg, J.R., L.H. Peters, D.R. Ilgen and F. Smith: 1977, ‘Organizational and Personal Correlates of Attitudes toward Women as Managers’, Academy of Management Journal 20(1), 89-100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terborg, J.R. and P. Shingledecker: 1983, ‘Employee Reactions to Supervision and Work Evaluation as a Function of Subordinate and Manager Sex’, Sex Roles 9(7), 813-824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A.S. and C.A. O’Reilly: 1989, ‘Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior–Subordinate Dyads’, Academy of Management Journal 32(2), 402-423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D.B. and T.L. Keon: 1993, ‘Organizational Attractiveness: An Interactionist Perspective’, Journal of Applied Psychology 78(2), 184-193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexley, K.N. and E.D. Pulakos: 1982, ‘Sex Effects on Performance Ratings in ManagerSubordinate Dyads: A Field-Study’, Journal of Applied Psychology 67(4), 433-439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woehr, D.J. and S.G. Roch: 1996, ‘Context Effects in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Ratee Sex and Performance Level on Performance Ratings and Behavioral Recall’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 31-41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Plantage Muidergracht 12, 1018 TV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Victor S. Maas

  2. THR International Tourism Consultants, Barcelona, Spain

    Raquel Torres-González

Authors
  1. Victor S. Maas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raquel Torres-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor S. Maas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maas, V.S., Torres-González, R. Subjective Performance Evaluation and Gender Discrimination. J Bus Ethics 101, 667–681 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0763-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0763-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation