Systemic Changes to Address Biases in Performance Management - Dave D'Oyen (SocialHRCamp Toronto 2020)
0 likes58 views
The document discusses systemic issues in performance management, highlighting dissatisfaction among managers and biases in evaluations, particularly against women and racialized groups. It presents statistics on representation and income disparities across sectors and provides insights into how biases manifest in performance reviews and funding opportunities for entrepreneurs. Recommendations for improving evaluations through structured processes and awareness of bias are also offered.
![“[Performance reviews] set up an uncomfortable dynamic
between managers and employees in which one person is judge
and jury for the other. Recent neuroscience research shows that
this dynamic can put employees on the defensive and actually
result in worse performance—even for high-performers.”
- Rose Mueller-Hanson, HR practice leader, CEB](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/yt0jcdsl7rmknzci6fw3-signature-b27fad50db311b2fe57e1bf7045c3474b2cfa47e85bf9ec06192f45756820f57-poli-200303155029/85/Systemic-Changes-to-Address-Biases-in-Performance-Management-Dave-D-Oyen-SocialHRCamp-Toronto-2020-36-320.jpg)
Systemic Changes to Address Biases in Performance Management - Dave D'Oyen (SocialHRCamp Toronto 2020)
- 1. Systemic Changes to Address Biases in Performance Management Dave D’Oyen linkedin.com/in/davedoyen | @DaveDOyen
- 2. 95% of managers are dissatisfied with their performance reviews/management systems
- 3. 15% and 24% of women and men managers respectively had confidence in the performance evaluation process, while most viewed it as subjective and highly ambiguous 56% said they do not receive feedback on what to improve 59% of employees feel performance reviews are not worth the time invested
- 4. 9 in 10 HR leaders don’t believe annual performance reviews result in accurate information
- 6. Representation by corporate role, by gender and race in 2018, % of employees 1 = Entry level 2 = Manager 3 = Senior manager/director 4 = Vice president 5 = Senior vice president 6 = C-suite
- 7. Representation of women, visible minorities, and visible minority women in senior leadership positions by sector, 2009 and 2014 SECTOR Women Visible Minorities (VM) Visible Minority Women 2009 2014 Growth Rate 2009 2014 Growth Rate 2009 2014 Growth Rate Elected 36.2% 40.0% +10.6% 16.1% 20.8% +29.6% 5.4% 7.5% +40.0% Public 33.2% 39.2% +18.2% 8.1% 11.8% +45.2% 1.6% 6.8% +320.2% Corporate 16.5% 19.9% +20.5% 2.5% 4.5% +78.9% 0.7% 0.8% +13.7% Voluntary 34.0% 33.8% -0.7% 12.9% 14.3% +10.4% 3.8% 5.7% +49.5% Education 40.2% 41.4% +3.1% 21.7% 19.6% -9.7% 9.4% 6.8% -27.9% Government ABCs 42.0% 40.7% -3.0% 18.8% 18.2% -3.3% 3.9% 3.9% -0.9% ALL SECTORS 30.6% 32.5% +6.3% 11.6% 12.8% +11.0% 3.1% 4.2% +32.9%
- 8. Average employment income Earnings gap: same gender Earnings gap: non-racialized men Men Women Men Women Women Non-racialized 56,920 38,247 1.00 1.00 0.67 All racialized groups 44,423 33,304 0.78 0.87 0.59 South Asian 46,974 32,336 0.83 0.85 0.57 Chinese 49,470 37,785 0.87 0.99 0.66 Black 37,817 31,900 0.66 0.83 0.56 Filipino 41,563 34,065 0.73 0.89 0.60 Latin American 42,651 30,044 0.75 0.79 0.53 Arab 42,154 28,548 0.74 0.75 0.50 Southeast Asian 41,656 31,537 0.73 0.82 0.55 West Asian 40,405 28,982 0.71 0.76 0.51 Korean 41,229 29,765 0.72 0.78 0.52 Japanese 59,824 37,196 1.05 0.97 0.65 Visible minority, n.i.e. 44,583 35,294 0.78 0.92 0.62 Multiple visible minorities 44,582 34,044 0.78 0.89 0.60 Employment income by racialized group: Canada, 2015
- 9. Bias in the Classroom • Teachers stared longer at Black children when primed to look for behavioural problems • Increased the severity of suggested disciplinary actions for students from a different racial group when provided background information on student with a behavioural problem • Disciplinary actions more likely to be applied to African American students, particularly boys
- 10. “You women find it more difficult toward your path to directorship. You are naturally consensus builders. We are looking for a specific profile.” - Director to Caterina Kostoula
- 11. Double Bind When women behave more femininely • Weak • Insecure • Ineffective When women behave more masculinely • Unlikable • Abrasive • Bossy
- 12. “Ideas like advocating for yourself can work really well for white women, but no one considers those ideas in the context of the thinly-veiled race-based stereotypes like being ‘too aggressive’ or ‘hot-blooded’, which is what women of color face all the time.” - Nicole Sanchez, Founder and CEO, Vaya Consulting
- 13. VCs Frame Questions in Two Different Ways TOPIC PROMOTION PREVENTION Customers Acquisition Example question: “How do you want to acquire customers?” Retention Example question: “How many daily and monthly active users do you have?” Income Statement Sales “How do you plan to monetize this?” Margins “How long will it take you to break even?” Market Size “Do you think that your target market is a growing one?” Share “Is it a defensible business wherein other people can’t come into the space to take share?”
- 14. VCs Frame Questions in Two Different Ways TOPIC PROMOTION PREVENTION Projections Growth “What major milestones are you targeting for this year?” Stability “How predictable are your future cash flows?” Strategy Vision “What’s the brand vision?” Execution “Are you planning to Turing test this?” Management Entrepreneur ”Can you tell us a bit about yourself?” Team “How much of this are you actually doing in-house?”
- 15. 2x as much funding allocated to entrepreneurs who were asked promotion-focused questions than prevention-based questions
- 16. Comparing How Male and Female Entrepreneurs Are Described by VCs The average MALE entrepreneur is described with attributes such as: The average FEMALE entrepreneur is described with attributes such as: ”Young and promising” “Young, but inexperienced” “Arrogant, but very impressive competence” “Lacks network contacts and in need of help to develop her business concept” “Aggressive, but a really good entrepreneur” “Enthusiastic, but weak” “Experienced and knowledgeable” “Experienced, but worried” “Very competent innovator and already has money to play with” “Good-looking and careless with money” “Cautious, sensible, and level-headed” “Too cautious and does not dare” ”Extremely capable and very driven” “Lacks ability for venturing and growth" “Educated engineer at a prestigious university and has run businesses before” “Visionary, but with no knowledge of the market”
- 17. women received 25% of the funding requested men received 52% of the funding requested
- 18. Open box = Open to bias • Lack of structure advantage men • More likely to rely on gender, race, and other stereotypes when making • Described in ways that align with leadership, given coaching needed to advance • Women receive less praise and less actionable guidance
- 19. Structured Interviews Structured • Focus on core skills and competencies • Underrepresented candidates experience less stress • Allows better candidate to stand out Unstructured • Makes the process less objective • Gives unfair advantage to in-group members by creating warmer/friendlier setting
- 20. Feedback Men • Receive longer reviews • Focused on their technical skills Women • Shorter review • Focused on communication skills • Vague feedback (no specific details about what was done well and how to advance)
- 21. Create a rubric for evaluations
- 22. • Define the criteria before the assessment, then take evidence from the employee’s outcomes • Avoid undervaluing education and experience that is non-traditional or unconventional, (outside mainstream), or focused on issues of race, gender, other dimensions of diversity • Seek experts to assess fields with which you are unfamiliar • Requests for accommodation must not factor into evaluation
- 23. • Create a checklist with managers that prompts for fairness by referencing predetermined data • “Did you collect the following evidence/data for this employee over the past 6 months?” • ”While writing your evaluations did you consider the following (previously agreed criteria)?”
- 24. Implement 360-degree reviews Mitigates halo effect, confirmatory bias and similarity bias
- 25. Physician Shortage in Texas: University of Texas Medical School at Houston • Increase class size: 150 200 • Pick 50 from still-available pool • Result: Performance of initially accepted and initially rejected students turned out to be the same • Three-quarters of difference in ratings: interviewers’ perceptions of the candidates in unstructured interviews • Idiosyncratic Rater Effect: On average, 61% of a rating is based on the judgments of the rater rather than the ratee
- 26. Persons with first-hand knowledge should evaluate the employee’s work Succumb to gender bias with limited information
- 27. Increase awareness of bias Self-study and continuous learning Challenge misconceptions with facts Audit sources of information
- 28. “The present research suggests that automatic and controlled intergroup biases can be modified through diversity education. In 2 experiments, students enrolled in a prejudice and conflict seminar showed significantly reduced implicit and explicit anti-Black biases, compared with control students.” - Laurie Rudman, Richard Ashmore, and Melvin Gary (2001)
- 29. Biases • Contrast bias: a result of comparing team members against one another, even if they’re in different jobs or at different levels • Experience bias: a tendency to believe that our interpretation is not only accurate, but that it constitutes the whole truth • Leniency bias: either stricter or more forgiving than his or her peers when evaluating and rating performance • Likability bias: occurs when managers rate employees based on their perception of their personality instead of their performance • Successful women viewed as aggressive and bossy while successful men are viewed as unremarkable and expected
- 30. Create better prompts Identify three specific, measurable outcomes for each of your employees
- 31. Review employees as a group rather than individually
- 32. Evaluation Nudge Intervention aimed at overcoming biased assessments, in which people are evaluated jointly rather than separately regarding their future performance • Much less likely to stereotype by gender if applied • Horizontal vs Vertical • Separate evaluation: More likely to choose male employees for the math tasks and females for the verbal tasks • Interviewers highly influenced by candidates’ gender • Joint evaluation: Stereotypes did not matter (frame of reference) • Gender didn’t affect assessments
- 33. “Our hunch is that the mechanism works something along the following lines: if you look at one pair of shoes, it's hard to evaluate the quality of those shoes. You will be much more likely to go with stereotypes or heuristics or rules of thumb about shoes. But if you have several pairs of shoes available, you're much more likely to be able to compare different attributes of the shoes." - Iris Bohnet, Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University
- 34. Implement quarterly or bi-annual reviews Counter recency and spill-over biases
- 35. Audit Identify patterns of uniformity and variation
- 36. “[Performance reviews] set up an uncomfortable dynamic between managers and employees in which one person is judge and jury for the other. Recent neuroscience research shows that this dynamic can put employees on the defensive and actually result in worse performance—even for high-performers.” - Rose Mueller-Hanson, HR practice leader, CEB