Disrupting Bias in Feedback
Whenever I find myself in the midst of a performance review cycle, I’m suddenly reminded of the many opportunities for bias to creep in to our processes. Our attempts to objectively evaluate ourselves and our peers are inevitably thwarted by our human brains which seek to compare, categorize, and rationalize, resulting in a (usually unintentional) reinforcement of stereotypes and common biases. But one of the best things we can do for our unconscious biases is to identify them by name so that we might disrupt them through better awareness.
As you read your team member’s self reflections, collate their peer feedback, participate in calibrations, and eventually write their performance evaluations, it’s helpful to know the common forms that bias takes.
In the next section, I’ve referenced some popular patterns of bias that I’ve encountered, both as a person giving feedback and a person receiving it. A majority of the patterns below are taken straight from Joan C. Williams’ research and her Harvard Business Review article, The 5 Biases Pushing Women Out of STEM, which finally helped me name the biases I see frequently. A lot of this is specific to women, and becomes more complicated when women of color are the target. Some of it includes men of color. And while neither the research nor this blog post specifically reference nonbinary individuals, they experience many of these biases as well, often based on how they present. You may even spot some of these patterns in feedback for your team members from majority groups! Regardless of where these biases show up, it’s your responsibility as a manager to disrupt them, either by questioning yourself, your management team, or your peers.
Please note that often we receive feedback that is both rooted in bias/stereotypes and at the same time completely valid. It might be reasonable for my manager to ask that I speak up more in meetings or be more pleasant to my coworkers — but only as long as the expectations are specific, evaluated equally across groups, and a part of doing my job effectively. As long as that’s the case, delivering this feedback in a way that is clear and geared towards skill development is key. So as you read through the common patterns of bias, consider where you’ve seen this show up in performance reviews you’ve written or received, and use the “Disrupt it” section to introspect further.
COMMON PATTERNS OF BIAS
PROVE-IT-AGAIN
In a 2014 study at UC Hastings College of Law on Women of Color in science, 2/3 of women reported having to prove more evidence of competence. Specifically, “Black women (76.9%) were more likely than the other three groups of women to report having to prove themselves over and over again (Latinas: 64.5%; Asian-Americans: 63.6%; Whites: 62.7%).” This bias holds women back from progressing at the same rate of their male peers, who are more often given stretch assignments.
Disrupt it: If you find yourself questioning the competence of your people, who I might add passed the same set of interviews as their peers, it should give you pause. Look out for team members, especially women, whose progress seems stalled, who might not be considered as ambitious as their peers, and who have repeatedly been asked to tackle the same types of projects with similar levels of difficulty. Be aware of which team members have their successes attributed to aptitude and work ethic vs. those whose successes are attributed to luck or help from others, and in both cases ask whether that’s accurate. Reverse the roles and do a gut check on whether the feedback would still be the same. Use this as an opportunity to reflect on whether they are being given the same benefit of the doubt that others have received, and whether they are being stretched enough.
THE TIGHTROPE
“Women must constantly walk the tightrope of appearing feminine enough to meet the expectations placed upon us, but masculine enough to appear competent in our jobs.”
This is one of the most common types of biases I’ve encountered in feedback. Women must constantly walk the tightrope of appearing feminine enough to meet the expectations placed upon us, but masculine enough to appear competent in our jobs. This shows up constantly with words like “vocal”, “aggressive”, and “ambitious”, which we either exhibit too much of or not enough. Many women I know have received feedback that they need to be “more vocal in meetings,” only to get feedback the next round that they are “too aggressive.”
Race plays an interesting factor in this form of bias, where women of color face additional stereotypes. Asian women may not be expected to stand up for themselves lest they be labeled “aggressive”. Latinas who are assertive are labeled “angry” and “emotional”. Black women may be allowed to behave in more dominant ways, but only up until the point where they are labeled as “angry”. (Refer back to the UC Hastings study for more details.) These stereotypes are reinforced by our society every day, so it’s understandable why they bleed into our perceptions of our coworkers. However, as leaders we must recognize these stereotypes and counteract them consciously.
Disrupt it: Notice how often the women in your org are critiqued on their communication frequency and style, and contrast it to how often it comes up for men. If a woman exhibits “not enough” of a particular trait, ask yourself how easily her peers might consider that behavior “too much” if she acts on this feedback. If feedback about someone reinforces a stereotype, you should be seriously considering its validity (for both men and women). The problem may not be with your team member. Even if you agree the feedback is partially valid, this is a good time to reflect on how you might change your organization’s culture, processes, or meetings to accommodate and value people of all different working styles.
PERSONALITY PENALTIES
In 2014, Kieran Snyder (founder and CEO of Textio) wrote an article for Fortune about the linguistics of performance reviews called The abrasiveness trap: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews. When this article was posted to an email list for women engineers at the company I worked for, I was overwhelmed by the number of responses from women who’d been called “abrasive” in their performance reviews. In particular, because I didn’t realize I wasn’t alone (this word and its synonyms have showed up in many of my previous performance reviews). What Dr. Snyder noted is a significant difference between how men and women are evaluated. Not only were women more likely to receive critical feedback, but when critical feedback was encountered, men were more likely to be given constructive suggestions and areas for additional skill development. On the other hand, women were told to be less abrasive, less judgmental, and to step back and let others shine. It’s demoralizing to receive feedback that sounds like an admonition of who we are as people, without specifics on how this behavior has impeded our progress or how we might improve our interactions.
You may spot some tightrope bias in this fascinating passage from the article: “There’s a common perception that women in technology endure personality feedback that their male peers just don’t receive. Words like bossy, abrasive, strident, and aggressive are used to describe women’s behaviors when they lead; words like emotional and irrational describe their behaviors when they object. All of these words show up at least twice in the women’s review text I reviewed, some much more often. Abrasive alone is used 17 times to describe 13 different women. Among these words, only aggressive shows up in men’s reviews at all. It shows up three times, twice with an exhortation to be more of it.”
Disrupt it: Look out for keywords that suggest a problem with who someone is and seek to outline specific tactics on how to be more effective in their interactions. Don’t be afraid to push back on peers who give this feedback and ask for more concrete examples and suggestions (also don’t be afraid to send them the Fortune article so they can learn why you’re asking for details)! Challenge yourself to remove the words bossy, abrasive, judgmental, and aggressive from your peer feedback and performance evaluations.
THE MATERNAL WALL
From the UC Hastings study: “Maternal wall bias includes descriptive stereotyping that results in strong assumptions that women lose their work commitment and competence after they have children.” You may ask why this pattern of bias is focused on the “Maternal Wall” rather than the “Parental Wall”. While men and women deserve the same respect as parents and both can have their commitment to work called into question, studies point to a clear reality: men are typically viewed favorably for adhering to their family commitments, but women are assumed to yearn for less work responsibility.
Disrupt it: Do you have women in your org who recently returned from parental leave? Or women who leave early or work amended schedules for childcare purposes? Look out for peer feedback that calls her commitment into question or makes assumptions about the workload she can handle. If she hasn’t specifically asked for a lighter workload, there’s no reason to assume she needs or wants one. Make yourself aware of whether she is experiencing any isolation or penalties for not socializing with the team after work, however subtle and unintentional those penalties may be. Does her feedback indicate that she needs to try harder to be a part of the team? If so, consider again how you might encourage your team to be more inclusive of her, and anyone who acts as a caregiver to a child or family member.
TUG-OF-WAR
While the UC Hastings study optimistically shows that 3/4 of women scientists feel other women support each other in the workplace, it’s still true that gender biased environments create a false sense of competition between women. 20% of women from the study still noted that they “feel like I am competing with my female colleagues for the ‘woman’s spot’”. The Atlantic also has a fascinating article called Why Women (Sometimes) Don't Help Other Women, which explains possible reasons why this might happen.
Disrupt it: If you notice women being harsh critics of each other, you may want to think more deeply about their environment. Have we unintentionally created an environment where career progress and recognition feels scarce? As you consider this, be careful not to overcorrect and dismiss constructive peer feedback as a “personal conflict” (or worse, a “catfight”)!
ISOLATION
This type of bias affects women of color more significantly than white women. Deep-seated feelings of isolation may result from multiple sources, including: the unintentional effects of an unconsciously-biased environment, intentional exclusion from teammates (even well-meaning teammates who have misguided concerns about how comfortable a woman of color may feel at a social event), or self-imposed exclusion due to feeling uncomfortable engaging with their teammates in particular ways.
Disrupt it: Like the Maternal Wall bias, look out for even the most subtle penalties for team members who don’t “fit in” or don’t wish to socialize outside of working hours. Scrutinize your team environment more closely than you scrutinize team members who challenge the existing rules of engagement on your team.
“Scrutinize your team environment more closely than you scrutinize team members who challenge the existing rules of engagement on your team.”
IMBALANCED SCRUTINY
If you want to know why we refer to bias and workplace discrimination as systemic, you need look no further than this article by Gillian B. White. In it, she states, “There’s data that demonstrates the unfortunate reality: Black workers receive extra scrutiny from bosses, which can lead to worse performance reviews, lower wages, and even job loss.” When Black workers are more closely scrutinized, it is more likely their errors are caught. When those errors are caught, studies show that Black workers are more likely to be let go as a result. This leads to further disadvantages: slower promotion timelines, shorter tenures at their companies, larger and more frequent gaps in employment, etc. -- all things that might be referenced by an interviewer looking at a resume or could otherwise impact their wage growth! Disrupting this form of bias can put a stop to this infuriating cycle.
Disrupt it: We all make mistakes. If you see a Black employee being called out repeatedly for honest mistakes or mistakes that others on your team have made in the past, seriously evaluate and compare the repercussions for each individual. Are you or your team members holding them to a different standard? Are these one time mistakes that they will learn from? Do they have the same level of mentorship and oversight that their other team members have had (and not just the same level of access to mentors but the same mentorship experience)? Bonus disruptor: Consider this form of bias the next time you’re reviewing a resume, evaluating a candidate, or assessing a new employee’s level. Look out for assumptions like, “They were at Company X for two years and never got promoted, were they not performing?” or “Why were they at their last three companies for only one year?” How valuable is this signal? If it’s valuable, get their honest take before making up your own narrative.
THE CHEERLEADER
Being told to “smile more” is part of the Tightrope bias but pervasive enough to warrant its own section. We stereotypically expect women to be pleasant and positive. While we should expect that all team members act in a professional and courteous manner with each other, we do not assess competence or effectiveness based on facial expressions. Women of all races are asked to be more pleasant and to smile more often, or to be a “cheerleader” for their team (yes, even in their written feedback!) in order to conform to our expectations of femininity.
Disrupt it: If a peer is asking your team member to smile more, this is not feedback to pass on to your direct report, but instead a coaching opportunity for the peer who wrote it.
THE GUT CHECK
I keep an eye out for all of the biases listed above whenever I’m reading feedback or participating in calibrations. What I find most helpful when formulating my own feedback — whether written in a performance evaluation or planning to deliver in person — is to do a quick gut check. I typically ask myself the following four questions:
Would I give this same feedback to someone of a different gender (or race, etc)?
Would I tell a man to be more vocal or aggressive?
Am I asking someone to be something they are not?
Am I placing unfair expectations on an introvert?
Have I made a statement about who someone is or who they tend to be?
Is it irrefutable or actionable to tell someone “You tend to be harsh in conversation with others”?
What feedback should I be giving others, too?
Maybe I need to tell a non-native English speaker to participate more in team discussions, but I probably also want to tell others to interrupt less and provide alternative ways to give feedback on technical decisions.
I find that these questions help to keep me more honest in my feedback for all genders and ethnicities. You may choose to swap these for your own set of questions.
NEED HELP?
If you’re noticing a pattern that you don’t know how to deal with, or if you’d like someone to review a particular performance evaluation you’ve written, ask another manager who might have experienced these biases in their own reviews if they would be willing to give their take. I’m a big fan of managers helping managers. And while I can be wary of always having to give “the woman’s take” on something, I’m more than happy to help coworkers with this type of review. Performance reviews and feedback have significant and lasting impact on someone’s career trajectory, so I always find this a worthy use of time. I cover this briefly in my post on Writing Better Performance Assessments.