Non-discriminatory evaluation criteria

Non-discriminatory evaluation criteria are just as crucial to avoiding gender-specific discrimination in the evaluation of performance as an appropriate process such as communicative evaluation.

Criteria are often based explicitly or implicitly on a male-defined social norm that discriminates against all other life forms. Thus, for example, the criteria of commitment is described in such a way that people with family responsibilities can achieve top evaluations only at the cost of great personal sacrifice. The same is true for the evaluation of management skills. Getting one’s own ideas accepted, a concept that is very heavily oriented to the male norm, is usually expected for a top mark in evaluation. Leadership in the sense of enabling results to be achieved deviated from this norm and thus tends to be rewarded with an average evaluation.

In a specific evaluation situation, discrimination occurs on the one hand because women are per se assumed to possess qualities that tend to be valued lower in terms of the performance norm. Thus, the performance of women is often not even perceived as performance. Secondly, there is the risk that people (women as well as men) will be given a worse evaluation if they display manners of behavior that tend rather to be attributed to women.

In evaluation interviews women can be at a disadvantage if those doing the evaluation have not been made aware of gender-specific differences. Women frequently attribute success to favorable circumstances or good teamwork, while men relate success very heavily to their personal abilities.


Creating awareness of gender-specific stereotypes

Existing criteria should therefore be reviewed to check whether they are susceptible to gender-specific stereotyping. This risk exists in principle with all criteria used for evaluating performance, especially as the act of evaluation is always a subjective attribution of certain qualities to individual persons.

We would therefore argue for a structured communicative evaluation process and accompanying creation of awareness and training to sensitize both those conducting evaluations and those being evaluated. They should be encouraged to reflect upon their own patterns of perception with the aim of overcoming gender-specific prejudices, in order to be able to make an appropriate evaluation of the performance of women and of men.

The following overview is a brief summary of stereotypes and proposed solutions for individual criteria. We do not claim that this is complete.

Willingness – It is usually assumed that a person should, if required, deploy all available resources to deal with work as it occurs.
Proposal:
Concretize the description for willingness with regard to available working time and other responsibilities. Do not define limitless flexibility as the only positive norm. Performance is in the intensity of the work and not in the number of hours of overtime.

Ability to withstand stress – Stress in areas of work typically associated with women is frequently accorded lower recognition.
Proposal:
Make allowance not just for time stress but also for social stress such as dealing with conflict, colleagues and clients.

Distribution of duties – Men are more often assigned to more demanding duties.
Proposal:
Review job duties and include the concrete terms of reference in the evaluation.

Communication – Women are frequently given less space to present their proposals and the results of their work.
Proposal:
Review patterns of communication, for example by means of feedback loops, in order to review communicative behavior in work units.

Part-time working – The evaluation is as a rule based on a standard employment relationship.
Proposal:
Conduct evaluation on the basis of the job description and job duties (requirements profile) as well as central results. Do not just take time spent at work into account.

Management and leadership skills and assertiveness – Getting decisions accepted counts as a leadership skill and is predominantly attributed to men.
Proposal:
Review the implicit leadership and management norm. Address not just assertiveness but also the ability to mediate as a management skill.

Development capability – Women are assumed to have an orientation to the family, while men are assumed to be oriented to their careers, and therefore promotion.
Proposal:
Take actual capabilities and interests into account and do not base evaluation on social patterns of expectation.

Gender competence – Gender-specific prejudices about the women and the men obstruct reinforcement of the gender approach.
Proposal:
Include as criteria in asking about leadership and management skills for example:
-    engages with differences in female and male staff in the work process
-    avoids gender-specific stereotypes
-    takes part in training measures on gender equality and Gender Mainstreaming.

Literature

• Fried, A., Wenzel, R., Baitsch, C.: Wenn zwei das Gleiche tun. Diskriminierungsfreie Personalbeurteilung, Zürich, 2000.
• Jochmann-Döll, Andrea: Leistungsbeurteilung und Leistungsvergütung unter der Lupe; in: GiP, Heft 1, 2005, S. 7-9.
• Krell, Gertraude: Chancengleichheit und Fairness in der Leistungsbeurteilung; in: Personalführung 11/2001, S. 38-43.
• Schreyögg, F. (1998): Die Beurteilung der Leistung von Frauen und Männern ist nicht geschlechtsneutral; in: Verwaltung und Management 4. Jg., Heft 4, 1998, S. 341-344.
• Schreyögg, F. (o.J.): Beurteilungshilfen: Gerecht beurteilen – Reflexionshilfen für EntwurfsverfasserInnen und BeurteilerInnen, München.