This post is co-authored by Professor Joan C. Williams (Equality Action Center) and Jonathan Njus (W.K. Kellogg Foundation). Drawing on extensive research and deep collaboration with the Equality Action Center and leaders across the Expanding Equity network, we’re launching a three-part blog series – How Leaders Can Build the Best Teams. This series is designed to equip HR leaders, middle managers and frontline supervisors with practical tools to level the playing field for all workers and build high-performing and highly-productive teams. Join EAC’s Bias Interrupters to get access to more evidence-based metrics-driven tools for creating a consistent employee experience in HR systems and in workplace interactions.
Giving Fair and Unbiased Performance Evaluations
Even well-meaning managers can fall into biased patterns when writing up performance evaluations for their team members. These patterns don’t just affect individual employees – they undermine team performance and organizational effectiveness. They prevent the best people from being fully recognized and compensated for their contributions to the organization, and advancing and contributing even more to the organization. Unfortunately, performance evaluations can be another vector of bias on teams that prevents some people from getting paid and moving up within the organization. This post breaks down three most common types of biases in performance evaluations and how to prevent them.
Common Biases in Performance Evaluations
Feedback Bias: Who Gets Specific vs. Vague Feedback
One of the most common ways biases show up in evaluations is through the feedback itself. Research shows that women tend to get general, directionless praise while men receive more specific, actionable guidance. One study found that about 57% of women get vague feedback compared to 43% of men, and another found that women often do not receive honest feedback about areas for improvement (Correll & Simard, 2016; Jampol & Zayas, 2021). That may not seem like a hugely significant differential, but even a 5% difference adds up over time, like compounding interest. While withholding what may be perceived as negative feedback can seem to protect the individual, it actually prevents personal development and career growth. If employees are always told they’re doing well, they never get the chance to learn where they need to improve their performance in order to advance at the organization. Men are also more likely to receive developmental feedback linked to business outcomes: one study found that 60% of men received this type of guidance compared to only 40% of women (Correll & Simard, 2016). It is important to give specific areas for the employee to work on by highlighting priorities, setting expectations, and offering support. This type of concrete feedback, versus broad compliments that lack substance, will lead to skill development and make the person a better employee.
Prove-It-Again Bias: Different Standards for Different Groups
Some employees must repeatedly prove themselves while others are promoted based on “potential” alone (Williams & Dempsey, 2014). This manifests in three critical ways:
- Lack of fit occurs when we hold unspoken assumptions about who’s a good fit for certain organizations and jobs. When you imagine a leading scientist, engineer, doctor, lawyer or tech developer, who comes to mind? Do they have a particular gender or demographic background? These unconscious assumptions mean that individuals who don’t fit a more traditional mold are held to higher standards than their colleagues. And some groups have to provide more evidence of competence in order to be seen as equally competent as the dominant group.
- Performance versus potential in evaluations can create particularly troubling disparities for employees. Some groups are judged based on their performance, or what they accomplished in the past, while other groups are judged based on their potential, or what they could achieve in the future (Correll et al., 2020). It’s far easier to imagine a bright future than to have to provide concrete evidence of actual results. There are many more pathways to success when you’re looking at potential and not performance.
- The halo and horns effect is the longest recognized rating error, first documented over 100 years ago (Thorndike, 1920; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Lachman & Bass, 1985; Jacobs & Kozlowski, 1985). What happens in evaluations is that one success can create a “halo” that colors all feedback positively, while one misstep can create “horns” that unfairly drags ratings down. More recent research in tech companies shows the halo and horns effect is still prevalent: men were more often called “visionary,” and such comments raised men’s ratings more than women’s. In contrast, women who received feedback that they needed to acquire new skills for advancement received lower ratings than men who received the same feedback (Williams, 1995; Correll et al., 2020).
Tightrope Bias: Leadership Behaviors Are Judged Differently for Different Groups
Office politics are more complicated for some groups than others. For example, assertiveness may be seen as confident leadership in men but labeled as aggressive behavior in women. Another example is some employees or groups who have bad days may be remembered as having personality problems, while other employees or groups get the benefit of the doubt. The key is distinguishing when personality critiques are legitimate and tied to work and connected to performance, versus when they reflect different standards for different employees. In practice, leaders should watch for vague feedback about someone’s personality, behavior or approach, like “She’s too direct” or “He’s too indecisive” and ask whether the same behavior would be critiqued in all employees.
Joan C. Williams breaks down five common patterns of workplace bias, Prove-It-Again, The Tightrope, The Maternal Wall, Tug of War, and Distinct Racial Patterns, that shape careers across industries.
Writing Better Evaluations
Leaders need clear habits to make performance evaluations consistent and fair. For example:
Bias Interrupters for Employee Evaluations
- Stick to performance: Make sure you’re rating everyone based on their performance with specific examples of how they met (or didn’t meet) the relevant competencies, not on their potential.
- Apply consistent standards: Don’t waive established requirements for some employees or groups, but still apply them to other employees or groups, which creates an unfair evaluation process.
- Discuss specific skills: Make sure you’re highlighting the person’s skillset and give concrete examples for all ratings – both strengths and opportunities for growth.
- Limit personality critiques: If you do need to make a point about someone’s behavior, do not do so. Use specific evidence on how it’s impacting their job and performance.
- Watch for stereotypes: When writing an evaluation for someone that you’re concerned you might be biased in some way, apply it to another employee on your team to assess if it would still be an issue in your mind.
- Separate skills from style: Make sure employees are receiving feedback on job-relevant criteria, not just whether they have a “good” or “bad” personality.
Employees need to be supported and encouraged to provide quality feedback on their performance as well. Not everyone is equally comfortable with self-promotion, and some people (predominantly women) may be penalized for it while others (typically men) may be rewarded for it. The modesty mandate particularly affects women. In some cultures, women are taught that “a good person is a modest person.” That being said, some men are penalized for modesty (Rudman, 1998). Modest men are seen as having less leadership ability, ambition and confidence, and they are also seen as weaker, more uncertain and insecure. So, gender bias can go both ways and equally affect women and men. Managers must level the playing field by focusing on evidence rather than self-promotion style (Anderson et al., 2012).
Bias Interrupters for Self-Evaluations
- Use specific prompts: Instead of asking, “How were you most effective? or “How could you do even better,” ask employees to “Briefly describe 3-4 of their key contributions from last year with 2-3 pieces of evidence to support it.”
- Ask for evidence: Studies show that when prompts specifically request evidence-based accomplishments, managers receive much more substantive self-evaluations.
- Focus on evidence, not confidence: Look at what employees accomplished, not how confidently they describe what they did.
- Create celebration systems: Send team-wide emails highlighting individual accomplishments so everyone gets visibility, not just those who are the most comfortable with self-promotion.
Conclusion: Building Teams That Thrive
Fair performance evaluations benefit everyone by ensuring all employees receive the quality feedback they need to grow and excel in their job. When leaders implement evidence-based practices and interrupt bias, they not only make reviews more equitable but also unlock the full potential of their teams.
Transforming evaluations from subjective, personality-focused impressions into objective, growth-centered conversations strengthens both trust and performance. The most effective leaders model this approach, creating a team culture where feedback drives learning, impact and inclusion. By embedding these practices, organizations move closer to what every great team needs: a fair system that recognizes and rewards individual contribution and fuels collective success.
This is the final part of our series on How Leaders Can Build the Best Teams. The previous blog explored fair and effective management practices that help teams thrive once they’re assembled.
Ready to build the best teams?
The Expanding Equity Core Program is a free, online resource and cohort of professionals designed to help leaders create and implement the policies and practices that build fair and inclusive workplaces.
Join an upcoming info session to learn more.
Also consider joining Equality Action Center’s (EAC) Bias Interrupters Workshop being held this fall and next winter.
- Bias Interrupters are evidence-based metrics-driven tools for creating a consistent employee experience in HR systems and in informal workplace interactions. EAC will be working with companies in improving one or both of the following business systems:
- Performance Evaluations: Companies will learn effective strategies to change their evaluation process and forms to ensure all employees receive fair, evidence-based, and action-oriented feedback; and
- Access to Opportunities: Companies will learn strategies for managers to ensure everyone on their teams has access to career-enhancing work – and nobody is saddled with a disproportionate burden of office housework.
- The series will consist of three working sessions and EAC will hold office hours for companies who seek individualized help.
- If you are interested in learning more about this opportunity, please contact Rachel Korn at EAC ([email protected]).