The study featured 2,000 performance reviews across 250 U.S.-based organizations. Image: 3rdtimeluckystudio/Shutterstock.com
By: Aoibhinn Mc BrideWhile you might be operating under the assumption that once women hit their career stride and not only reach their targets and KPIs, but smash them out of the water, they are finally on an even playing field with their male counterparts. However, the opposite is true.
That’s because new research has found that high-performing women, for example, women who consistently go above and beyond their pay grade and duties, are subjected to the harshest criticism. Additionally, 76% have received negative feedback during performance reviews compared to just 2% of men.
The study, which featured 2,000 performance reviews across 250 U.S.-based organizations, uncovered that high-performing women received 38% more problematic feedback than their male counterparts at the same professional level.
*Listings from FEDweek Jobs
5 jobs hiring across the U.S.
● Systems Administrator – Expert (Government) – Security Clearance Required, AT&T, Chantilly
● Manager, Policy Advocacy and Federal Government Affairs, BP Energy, US
● Audit Manager – Construction & Government Contracting, RSM US LLP, San Antonio
● Lead Engineer – Federal, Lumen, HERNDON
● Manager, Federal Tax Compliance, CF Industries Employee Services LLC, Northbrook
Making it personal
This includes 78% of women being negatively described as “emotional” compared to only 23% of non-binary people, and 11% of men. Additionally, 56% of women recall being described as “unlikeable” compared to 31% of non-binary people and 16% of men.
As such, the report states that women receive 22% more personality feedback than men do, for example, women are more likely to be called collaborative (68%), helpful (36%) and nice (26%), while men are more likely to be called confident (54%) and ambitious (63%).
Other personality traits found to be overwhelmingly female include ‘opinionated’ (28% of women versus 4% of men), and ‘abrasive’ (22% of women versus 2% of men).
The report also found that women are seven times more likely to accept negative stereotypes about themselves—women (along with Asian people) are twice as likely to be referred to as overachievers—while men who are two to four times more likely to believe positive stereotypes about themselves, overwhelmingly hear themselves being described as intelligent (67% of men versus 32% of women) and likable (71% of men and 19% of women).
Racial bias influences perceptions of women at the top too: white people are more than twice as likely to be called likable compared to Black and Hispanic/Latino professionals, and “overachiever” is most likely to be used when speaking about women of color.
However, the report also highlights that workers who fit into the “high-performer” category are more likely to receive “fixed-mindset feedback” and more cliched feedback, suggesting that they are seen as more accountable than their peers.
“As we’ve seen, regardless of performance level, people are more likely to internalize feedback that aligns with social stereotypes about their identity. This creates a disproportionate disadvantage for people from the underrepresented groups that have been most heavily penalized with negative stereotypes,” the report’s authors note.
Moving forward
So how can female high-performers put this theory into practice and ensure their next performance review?
“The only way to safeguard against this is to provide feedback that avoids fixed-mindset and personality stereotypes, and is instead grounded in specific work behaviors and actionable examples. Feedback that is rich in stereotype rather than actionable examples creates a double whammy. It tanks both employee performance and employee retention.”
Crucially, actionable feedback should offer guidance so that the person at the receiving end can improve their performance and focus their attention on specific areas of their work, not their personality.
Similarly, these actionable insights should be measurable, for example, increasing sales by 20% in the next quarter.
Or you could suggest to your employer that they follow the SMART model to side-step any possibility of fixed-mindset criteria being used.
The acronym, which stands for specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-based, allows realistic goals to be set ahead of time and objectives or preferred outcomes to also be set so that everyone is on the same page and the best work gets done, without personality coming into the equation.
However, if you find yourself in the position where the organization you work for doesn’t conduct proper performance reviews and you are contemplating your next move, take comfort in the fact you’re not alone—30% of high performers quit within their first year of a job when they receive low quality feedback.
Browse thousands of job openings to find your next career opportunity today via the FEDweek Job Board.
Schedule F and DOGE: A Federal Employment Attorney’s Analysis
Crucial Last Checks before Retiring
How to Never Run Out of Money in Retirement
FERS and Social Security are Big, but You’ll Want a Fat TSP
There Could be More TSP Millionaires but for These Two Things
Best States to Retire for Federal Retirees: 2024
Is 2025 the Year to Open an HSA?
Enrollee Share of FEHB Premiums to Jump 13.5 Percent on Average for 2025
