Page 183 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

CLEVELAND, VESCIO, BARNES-FARRELL
152
organization outcomes (e.g., salary, promotion). Field and laboratory ex­
periments report contradictory findings regarding gender discrimination
in recruitment and selection. A meta-analysis conducted in the 1980s found
that evidence for gender discrimination in selection was strongest when
decision makers had only minimal information about applicants other
than their gender (Tosi & Einbender, 1985). More recent evidence focus­
ing specifically on selection interviews also provides ambiguous results re­
garding gender bias in interview evaluations. Several studies have reported
small to negligible sex differences in interview outcomes (e.g., Graves,
1999) whereas others studies find that both the interview process and inter­
view outcomes are biased against women (e.g., Silvester, 1996). It is possible
that job type moderates sex effects in interviews; women applying for jobs
that are typically held by men may be more likely to experience discrimi­
nation in interviews (Davison & Burke, 2000). There is also some evidence
that physical characteristics (e.g., emphasis on attractiveness) influence
interview evaluations and put women at a disadvantage (Graves, 1999).
With respect to development opportunities, a study of American fed­
eral civil service employees reported that, even after controlling for ed­
ucation, experience, and job level, men were more likely than women to
receive management training (Smithey & Lewis, 1998). However, contrary
to popular belief, the same study found no evidence of differential access
to mentoring based on protege gender. In fact, among professionals and
administrators, women were more likely than men to report being men­
tored.

Differences in Evaluations of Performance

The most notable illustration that some of the critical judgments and deci­
sions made in organizations are not systematically biased against women
comes from research on performance appraisal. There are many good
reasons to believe that the performance appraisals received by men and
women should systematically differ (e.g., most supervisors are male, stereo­
types of jobs usually fit men better than women; Murphy & Cleveland,
1995). It is clear, however, that gender does not have a strong or systematic
effect on performance evaluations (Bartol, 1999; Pulakos, White, Oppler,
& Borman, 1989). Performance ratings received by men are highly simi­
lar to those received by women. Similarly, male supervisors tend to as­
sign similar evaluations to those given by female supervisors. However,
as we will discuss in a later section, the few systematic differences that
have been reported may still reflect underlying prejudice and a propensity
to discriminate against women in decisions that have long-term individ­
ual and organizational significance (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). It is also