13 When Group Identities Matter

Abstract

Performance appraisals are a critical part of organizational life, and bias in appraisals is consistently mentioned as a barrier to advancement for diverse workers. This chapter reviews the literature on rater bias in performance appraisals, defined as effects on performance ratings due to ratee category membership. We focus on the major theoretical frameworks (e.g., stereotype fit and relational demography) used in the study of bias, organizing the research findings by the four most commonly studied demographic categories: gender, race, age, and disability. The review allows better understanding of the gaps in our knowledge and identifies needed future research directions in this literature stream. We conclude the chapter with several concerns including a lack of empirical research testing propositions concerning the effect of organizational variables on bias.

When the dark ones become darker: How promotion focus moderates the effects of the dark triad on supervisor performance ratings

“…Early research on rater bias, specifically halo error, focused on demographic differences such as race or gender (Roberson et al, 2007) indicating the effects of stereotyping and social identity. However, other factors influence the accuracy of performance appraisal ratings (Murphy, 2008).…”

Employability and Job Performance as Links in the Relationship Between Mentoring Receipt and Career Success

“…These were reported by participants themselves. Line managers' age and gender were also controlled for because these may influence performance ratings (Roberson, Galvin & Charles, 2007). Organizational size (1: 10-49, 2: 50-99, 3: 100-149; 4:150-199; 5: 200-249 employees) was also included (the relevant information was provided by our contact in each company, who was either the CEO or another senior officer) because promotion opportunities may be greater in larger organizations.…”

Why Do Women Still Not Make It to the Top? Dominant Organizational Ideologies and Biases by Promotion Committees Limit Opportunities to Destination Positions

“…Third, although recent scholarship has suggested the importance of intra-organizational factors in explaining bias at the top (Cortina 2008;Ely and Padavic 2007;Roberson et al 2007), few studies explicitly incorporate the nature of the organizational context as a critical determinant of promotion bias into their conceptualization. Exceptions include Haslam (2007, 2009) and Ryan et al's (2010) studies of women being appointed to high-level, precarious positions in organizations that are in crisis.…”

“…These scholars contend that more subtle forms of bias, which become particularly pronounced at higher levels of the organization, have replaced the blatant discrimination of earlier decades (Auster 1988(Auster , 1994Cortina 2008;Ely and Padavic 2007;Powell and Butterfield 1997). These studies suggest that tacit mental models drive perceptions and call for a more systematic explorations of intra-organizational bias (Auster 1989;Auster and Drazin 1988;Altman and Shortland 2008;Cortina 2008;Eagly 2005;Eagly and Karau 2002;Ely and Padavic 2007;Roberson et al 2007; Ryan and Haslam 2007). For example, in their study of African American and Hispanic candidates for top management (cabinet level) positions in the U.S. federal government found that mediating the relationship between demographics and promotion decision outcomes are a range of social psychological factors embedded in review committees.…”

“…An extensive body of research indicates that limited representation of women in top organizational positions persists (Cortina 2008;Ragins and Winkel 2011;Remedios and Snyder 2015;Roberson et al 2007) despite speculation that time would remedy the problem (Carter and Silva 2010;Catalyst 2009a, b;Roberson et al 2007). Women at the top still occupy only 3 % of CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst 2009a;Devillard et al 2014;Eagly and Carli 2007).…”