Mabel Abraham , Tristan L. Botelho , Gabrielle Lamont-Dobbin
{"title":"The (re)production of inequality in evaluations: A unifying framework outlining the drivers of gender and racial differences in evaluative outcomes","authors":"Mabel Abraham , Tristan L. Botelho , Gabrielle Lamont-Dobbin","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Evaluations play a critical role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. Although evaluation systems are a cornerstone of organizational and market processes, they often reinforce social and economic inequalities. The body of organizational research on inequality and evaluations is extensive, but it is also fragmented, siloed within specific contexts and types of evaluations (e.g., hiring, performance). As a result, we currently lack a systemic understanding of the conditions under which inequalities emerge. This paper provides a unifying framework to identify how gender and racial inequality is produced and reproduced in evaluations across professional contexts (e.g., digital platforms, entrepreneurship, traditional employment). Our framework categorizes the drivers of inequality into three main areas: prevailing beliefs in evaluative contexts, the design and structure of evaluation processes, and the characteristics of evaluators. Our approach not only sheds light on the common processes that exacerbate inequality but also underscores why an integrative framework is critical for both theoretical advancement and enacting effective reforms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100207"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308524000030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Evaluations play a critical role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. Although evaluation systems are a cornerstone of organizational and market processes, they often reinforce social and economic inequalities. The body of organizational research on inequality and evaluations is extensive, but it is also fragmented, siloed within specific contexts and types of evaluations (e.g., hiring, performance). As a result, we currently lack a systemic understanding of the conditions under which inequalities emerge. This paper provides a unifying framework to identify how gender and racial inequality is produced and reproduced in evaluations across professional contexts (e.g., digital platforms, entrepreneurship, traditional employment). Our framework categorizes the drivers of inequality into three main areas: prevailing beliefs in evaluative contexts, the design and structure of evaluation processes, and the characteristics of evaluators. Our approach not only sheds light on the common processes that exacerbate inequality but also underscores why an integrative framework is critical for both theoretical advancement and enacting effective reforms.
期刊介绍:
Research in Organizational Behavior publishes commissioned papers only, spanning several levels of analysis, and ranging from studies of individuals to groups to organizations and their environments. The topics encompassed are likewise diverse, covering issues from individual emotion and cognition to social movements and networks. Cutting across this diversity, however, is a rather consistent quality of presentation. Being both thorough and thoughtful, Research in Organizational Behavior is commissioned pieces provide substantial contributions to research on organizations. Many have received rewards for their level of scholarship and many have become classics in the field of organizational research.