Three approaches to the investigation of subgroup bias in performance measurement: Review, results, and conclusions.

Oppler, Scott H.; Campbell, John P.; Pulakos, Elaine D.; Borman, Walter C.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.201

Cited by 56 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…White raters evaluated the average white ratee higher than 64 percent of black ratees; black raters evaluated the average black ratee higher than 67 percent of white ratees. Other researchers (Oppler, Campbell, Pulakos, & Borman, 1992;Sackett & Du Bois, 1991) have had similar findings. In a recent article, Stauffer and Buckley (2005) challenged personnel psychologists' belief that supervisory ratings of job performance are not biased by race.…”

Section: Research On Trainingsupporting

confidence: 72%

Where to now? Race and ethnicity in workplace learning and development research: 1980–2005

Brooks

Clunis

2007

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Research On Trainingsupporting

confidence: 72%

Where to now? Race and ethnicity in workplace learning and development research: 1980–2005

Brooks

Clunis

2007

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As there is a greater percentage of minorities in the military than in the civilian workforce, military raters may be more accustomed to rating minority performers. Oppler, Campbell, Pulakos, and Borman (1992), again using the Army data, found that supervisor ratings were more performance-related and less influenced by ratee race than were peer ratings. Additionally, they found much higher agreement between black and white supervisors than between black and white peers, regardless of the race of the ratee.…”

Section: Gender-specific Performance Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Glass Ceiling: Potential Causes and Possible Solutions

Dugan¹,

Terner²,

Tagliarini³

et al. 1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publc ,-saqbuude lt USE CblIUUOA~ to =IOMIO toMorI nowhCS V oftU est u gnw. 10101IM" 05W tie for ritinir"~ matw. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ABSTRACT (Maxumum 200 wonS)Identifying barriers to advancement in its civilian workforce for women, minorities, and the disabled is a continuing concern for the Department of the Army. This literature review focuses on three potential causes of underrepresentation of minorities and women in the management ranks; lack of data on the disabled precluded treatment of this subgroup.The three causes of underrepresentation are systemic barriers, stereotypes and biases, and group differences.Systemic barriers are widespread policies and practices that perpetuate discriminatory treatment. Stereotypes and biases are thought to underlie the belief that minorities and women are not suited for managerial jobs.Individlual factors and group differences refer to the extent to which individual deficiencies, common to members of a subgroup, are responsible for underrepresentation of women and minorities in the management ranks. Based on findings in the literature, the report suggests avenues for future research on barriers to advancement within the Army and highlights methods that might reduce such barriers. Army Project Number Mhnpomr and Peronnel 20263007AMh2Approved for public relsme; disatbulon Is u nmled. il FOREWORDA recent review of the Senior Executive Service (SES) program in the Department of the Army concluded that more attention is needed in preparing candidates at grades 13, 14, and 15 for SES appointment. The review also concluded that the representation of women and minorities is disproportionately small at higher management levels. To explore possible reasons for this result, the Army has initiated a study of the "glass ceiling." The glass ceiling is an invisible barrier based on attitudinal and organizational bias that prevents minorities, women, and persons with disabilities from advancing into mid-and senior-level management The Department of the Army wishes to initiate a glass ceiling study to identify barriers to advancement for women, minorities, and the disabled in its civilian workforce. As a first step in this study, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences was tasked to survey the glass ceiling literature for the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Military Personnel Management and Equal Opportunity Policy. This report is the product of that literature review. Procedure:The literature review focused on three potential causes of the glass ceiling: systemic barriers; stereotypes and biases; and individual factors and group differences. Systemic barriers are widespread policies and practices, both formal and informal, that perpetuate discriminatory treatment of women and minorities. Stereotypes and biases are thought to underlie the belief that minorities and women are not suited for managerial jobs. Individual factors and group differences refer to the extent to which individual deficiencies, common to members of a su...

show abstract

“…The simplest example of this method is school assessment of five numerically expressed levels. They can be continuous and discontinuous, that is, they may have many levels, and it is possible to use different characters, lines, verbal designations, that is, adjectives (bad, above-average, average, below-average, excellent) ( Figure 2) [7,8].…”

Section: Graphic Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Programming and Implementation of Assessment

Ademi¹

2017

J Bus Fin Aff

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three approaches to the investigation of subgroup bias in performance measurement: Review, results, and conclusions.

Cited by 56 publications

References 31 publications

Where to now? Race and ethnicity in workplace learning and development research: 1980–2005

Where to now? Race and ethnicity in workplace learning and development research: 1980–2005

The Glass Ceiling: Potential Causes and Possible Solutions

Programming and Implementation of Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About