Effects of bias

Evaluation processes, just like other social processes, are very strongly influenced by the perceptions and expectations of the people involved. The orientation framework is mostly based on a corporate or management image that is oriented to the “male norm” and is constantly being reproduced due to the high number of men in management positions. The corporate culture built on this consequently remains blind to gender-specific effects and discriminates against persons who actually or supposedly cannot or will not conform to this culture.

Here are a few typical biases in perception:

• hedonistic bias: the ways a person being evaluated behaves that make a positive impression on the person conducting the evaluation will result in a favorable evaluation of performance
• visibility bias: the results of performance are not visible in the same way; easily observable behavior is noticeable and influences the evaluation, even if it is hardly relevant for the actual performance (halo effect)
• attribution bias: it is assumed that there are different causes for men and women bringing the same performance, so they are evaluated differently – the bias occurs here due to different gender-specific expectations

Discriminating effects that occur include

• Hierarchy effect: staff higher up in the hierarchy are given a  better assessment and they are usually men
• Adhesive effect: staff who have not been promoted for some time tend to be given a less good assessment, and these tend to be women (e.g. who work part-time)
• Halo effect: individual abilities or personal qualities mislead the person conducting the evaluation – the overall picture is less important
• Similarity effect: those conducting the evaluation give those persons a higher evaluation who are similar to themselves – if the people conducting the evaluations are predominantly men the result can be systematic discrimination against women
• Benjamin effect: people who have not been part of the organization for long will be evaluated more critically than others
• Part-time effect: Willingness of part-time staff is frequently per se evaluated lower – this affects mostly women, since the majority of part-time workers are women.
• Quota effect: Determining quotas for various performance grades results in evaluations that have nothing to do with performance

As well as misleading and biases, the interplay of diverging interests of management level, personnel department and superiors produces further problems. Those conducting the evaluations are also pursuing strategic goals in doing so, whether this is because they do not wish to put the working climate at risk or whether they want to help certain people (e.g. because of their age) to be promoted. There are often “good reasons” for dispensing with an evaluation that is not related to performance. What is vital for a non-discriminatory staff evaluation is that these informal strategic goals are also known and that they are neutralized in the course of the process with a view to the equal treatment of all staff.