CHANGE

The Power of Language: Addressing Gender, Status, and Agency in Performance Evaluations

Authors: Dr. Hanif Nu’Man

Adapted from The Power of Language: Gender, Status, and Agency in Performance Evaluations by David Smith et al. (2018)

Target Audience: Executives, Managers, and Human Resource Specialists

Date: December 4, 2024

Executive Summary

Performance evaluations are critical tools for assessing employee contributions, identifying growth opportunities, and shaping career trajectories. However, research by David Smith et al., published in Sex Roles, reveals that the language used in performance evaluations can unintentionally perpetuate gender disparities in the workplace. Evaluations often reflect biases related to gender, status, and agency, which can negatively impact career advancement opportunities, particularly for women.

This white paper explores the key findings of the study, highlighting how language shapes perceptions of competence, leadership potential, and agency in performance evaluations. It provides actionable recommendations for executives, managers, and human resource specialists to identify and mitigate bias, ensuring that performance evaluations promote equity, fairness, and inclusivity.

Introduction: The Role of Language in Performance Evaluations

Performance evaluations are more than a routine HR process—they are instrumental in determining promotions, salary increases, and developmental opportunities. However, Smith et al.’s research shows that the language used in evaluations often reflects implicit gender biases that reinforce traditional stereotypes.

For example, women are more likely to receive feedback focused on communal traits (e.g., being “collaborative” or “helpful”) rather than agentic traits (e.g., being “assertive” or “decisive”), which are traditionally associated with leadership. These linguistic patterns can influence how employees are perceived, limiting career advancement for women and perpetuating workplace inequities. For organizations committed to fostering diverse and inclusive workplaces, addressing the power of language in evaluations is essential.

Key Findings: How Gender, Status, and Agency Shape Evaluations

Smith et al. identify three critical ways in which language in performance evaluations reflects and reinforces gender dynamics:

1. Gendered Language and Stereotypes

Women are often described using communal language, emphasizing traits like empathy, teamwork, and nurturing. By contrast, men are more likely to be described using agentic language, emphasizing traits like independence, ambition, and decisiveness. While communal traits are valuable, the emphasis on these characteristics for women may undermine perceptions of their leadership potential, as leadership roles are often associated with agentic qualities. For example, a male employee might be described as “a decisive leader who drives results,” while a female employee might be described as “a supportive team player who fosters collaboration.”

2. Status and Role Expectations

Language in evaluations tends to reinforce traditional gender roles, where men are expected to excel in high-status, leadership-focused roles, and women are expected to thrive in supportive roles. Women in leadership positions often face double standards, receiving criticism for being “too assertive” or “not assertive enough.” In contrast, men in similar roles are less likely to face such contradictory expectations.

3. Agency in Feedback

Feedback for women often lacks specificity and actionable insights, focusing on personality traits rather than measurable accomplishments. In contrast, men are more likely to receive feedback that highlights specific achievements and offers a clear roadmap for growth. For instance, a woman might receive feedback such as “You’re great with people,” whereas a man might receive feedback such as “You successfully led the team to complete Project X ahead of schedule.”

Implications for Organizations

The subtle biases in performance evaluations have far-reaching consequences:

• Career Advancement: Women may be overlooked for promotions or leadership opportunities due to perceived lack of agency or leadership potential.

• Employee Retention: Persistent bias in evaluations can contribute to dissatisfaction and higher turnover among underrepresented groups.

• Organizational Culture: Biased evaluations undermine efforts to create an inclusive and equitable workplace, affecting team morale and organizational reputation.

Strategies to Address Bias in Performance Evaluations

To ensure that performance evaluations are equitable and free from gendered language, organizations should adopt the following strategies:

1. Use Structured Evaluation Frameworks

Standardizing the evaluation process reduces the influence of subjective biases. Use competency-based rubrics that focus on measurable outcomes and specific skills rather than vague descriptors. In addition, develop a list of clear, objective criteria for evaluating performance, such as project outcomes, leadership behaviors, and goal achievement.

2. Train Evaluators on Implicit Bias

Educate managers and supervisors about implicit gender biases to help them recognize and avoid biased language in their evaluations. One action step is to implement regular training sessions on unconscious bias and inclusive evaluation practices.

3. Review and Analyze Language in Evaluations

Conduct periodic audits of evaluation language to identify patterns of bias and compare evaluations across gender lines to ensure consistency in how traits and accomplishments are described. One action step is to use tools like text analysis software to detect differences in language, such as the use of communal versus agentic terms.

4. Provide Specific and Actionable Feedback

Focus feedback on specific behaviors and measurable outcomes rather than general personality traits to ensure that feedback includes clear, actionable steps for improvement and growth. One way is to replace vague comments like “You’re a great team player” with specific feedback such as “Your ability to coordinate the team’s efforts resulted in a 20% increase in efficiency.”

5. Encourage Calibration Sessions

Facilitate calibration sessions where managers discuss evaluations collectively to ensure consistency and fairness across teams. For instance, before finalizing evaluations, review them in group settings to check for biased language and ensure alignment with organizational goals.

The Business Case for Inclusive Evaluations

Addressing bias in performance evaluations is not just a matter of fairness—it’s a strategic imperative:

• Improved Diversity in Leadership: Fair evaluations ensure that women and underrepresented groups have equal access to leadership opportunities, driving innovation and decision-making.

• Enhanced Employee Engagement: Employees who feel valued and fairly assessed are more likely to stay engaged and committed to their work.

• Stronger Organizational Reputation: Demonstrating a commitment to equity enhances the organization’s ability to attract top talent and build a positive brand image.

Conclusion: Transforming Evaluations into Tools for Equity

The language used in performance evaluations has a profound impact on employee development and organizational culture. As Smith et al.’s research demonstrates, addressing biases related to gender, status, and agency is essential for creating fair and effective evaluation systems. By implementing structured frameworks, training evaluators, and focusing on specific, actionable feedback, executives, managers, and HR specialists can transform performance evaluations into tools for equity and inclusion. This not only benefits individual employees but also strengthens organizational performance and resilience.

The pdf version is here: