In the wake of movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, it has never been more evident that we still have a long way to go before our society and our workplaces are fair and equitable places that are devoid of systemic racism and discrimination.

In Bias Interrupted, Joan Williams outlines five forms of biases that are still far too common in our workplaces, with each consistently occurring over the two decades of research and practice from the field.

One of these biases, called the “prove-it-again bias”, illustrates how disadvantaged groups continuously have to prove themselves in a way that advantaged groups do not. Williams highlights how white men tend to get by on their potential and are judged accordingly.  People who are less privileged by their race, gender, and so on, however, more often have to constantly prove themselves in order to get ahead.

Being undervalued

This is aptly illustrated in a recent study from MIT, which shows that women tend to be under-represented in managerial roles in large part because their leadership skills are undervalued.  The paper, which was conducted at a large retail chain in North America, the authors found that despite 56% of entry-level workers being women, this shrinks to just 48% of department managers, 35% of store managers, and a paltry 14% of district managers.

The researchers assessed the career records of around 30,000 employees and found that women were 14% less likely to be promoted than men.  When they explored why this was, it emerged that the leadership potential of female employees was consistently under-valued compared to men.  This is despite the performance appraisals at the company revealing that women’s performances were usually rated higher than the men’s.

“What is commonly talked about in terms of management and potential are characteristics such as assertiveness, execution skills, charisma, leadership, ambition,” the researchers say. “These are, I believe, real traits. They’re also highly subjective and stereotypically associated with male leaders. And what we saw in the data is a pretty strong bias against women in assessments of potential.”

Disjointed ratings

The researchers found that while women were around 7% more likely to receive a high rating in their performance reviews, their leadership potential was nearly 6% lower.  They believe this contributes to at least half of the difference in promotions at the firm.

Might it be that while women are exceptional employees, they do indeed lack the leadership potential to warrant a promotion?  That was tested by the authors, and they found that the opposite was actually the case, with managers consistently undervaluing the female employees and underestimating their future performances.

Indeed, when actually looking at performances after an appraisal had taken place, female employees consistently performed better than male employees, even though they were also consistently viewed as having lower potential than their male peers who had been promoted into more senior roles.

Higher standards

It seems, for some reason, that women were being held to a higher standard than men were, and as Williams outlines, consistently having to prove their abilities in a way that men were not.

This is aptly illustrated by the fact that even when the women in the study exceeded expectations, they still didn’t tend to be given any benefit of the doubt, and were therefore still given lower potential ratings, even though their performance record said doing this was madness.  What’s even more worrying is that this trend appears to get worse the more senior you go.

“Women get progressively lower potential scores relative to their actual future performance as we rise up the corporate ladder,” the researchers explain. “So this is going to contribute, I think, to a stronger and stronger glass ceiling the higher up we go.”

Pay gap

This has an expected impact on the gender pay gap, with the shutout from senior roles resulting in female employees earning much less than their male peers.  Indeed, the researchers attribute 70% of the pay gap between men and women to the difference in genders in senior roles.

So how can such disjointed and unfair assessment practices be improved?  The authors argue that one option would be to strip ratings for potential from assessments entirely, and therefore promote people based purely on their actual performance.

Williams argues that the “prove-it-again bias” is harmful because while men are judged on their potential, women tend to be judged purely on what they’ve already achieved. This research shows that biases in the workplace often go beyond that, with the actual performances of women discounted compared to those of men.

While obviously, it’s not a direct correlation between strong task performance and good leadership potential, the MIT findings should provide a fresh incentive for organizations to look afresh at their assessment and promotion practices to ensure they’re not only fair to all employees, but are most effective in rewarding those with the most ability.

The authors note that this isn’t as simple as promoting more women into senior roles in the hope that they will rate their female peers more fairly, as this didn’t appear to be the case either.  They suggest that an effective way of overcoming this might be to ensure that more attention is paid to internal data so that gaps between performance, potential, and promotions are identified and looked at objectively rather than subjectively.

Either way, it’s quite likely that in performance systems today, women are getting unfair treatment, and organizations are losing out on potential leaders as a result.