Researchers have uncovered a new type of gender gap in the workplace placing women at a disadvantage.
In a new study published in International Economic Review, they found that women in leadership roles are judged by results alone whereas male leaders are judged by both their results and their intentions.
"We call this the gender criteria gap," said Dr Boon Han Koh from the University of Exeter Business School. "Different criteria are being used to judge and remunerate men and women. For men, outcomes matter, but the underlying perception of what a man has done also matters. For women, only outcomes matter, and the perception of what a woman has done does not."
The researchers looked at how bonus payments are determined by outcomes vs perceptions of actions chosen in a series of experiments involving around 600 participants.
The participants, who were unknown to each other, made investment decisions in groups of three, with one person assigned to be the group leader and the other two to be the evaluators.
The leader's investment decision was implemented for the group: investing more increased the probability of success but also imposed a higher personal cost, with outcomes partly determined by luck.
The leader's gender was then revealed and group members invited to form initial perceptions about the leader's investment choice, which they updated once learning the outcome of the leader's decision.
The evaluators then made either a bonus payment to the leader or handed them a penalty.
The researchers found that even though evaluators held similar perceptions about the actions taken by both male and female leaders, they rewarded them differently, with male leaders receiving higher bonus payments as well as being made to pay higher penalties.
They found that payments to male leaders rose strongly when they were perceived to have chosen the higher investment for the group, but the same perceptions for female leaders had little impact on what they were paid.
Return on investment, or the outcome, was important in determining payments for both male and female leaders. Dr Koh says the findings imply that "great results are necessary for women to get bonuses, but that men can get bonuses for a less optimal result as long as their actions are held in high regard".
The findings also reveal that male leaders could possibly receive bonuses for low outcomes if the evaluators had a positive enough perception about their decisions.
The research team says the fact that men and women are being evaluated differently is itself a problem and point out that an outcomes-based evaluation puts women leaders at a disadvantage.
"An evaluator could be assessing two female leaders whose results are the same," said Professor Nisvan Erkal from the University of Melbourne. "For some reason, the evaluator thinks one of them has acted in their self-interest whereas the other has acted in the interests of the group. But the evaluator doesn't reward them differently, because only the outcomes matter. Yet when men are perceived to have acted in the interest of the group, the evaluator rewards that regardless of the outcome of their actions."
In response to the idea that financial rewards should really be based on outcomes alone, rather than on anyone's subjective opinion, Professor Lata Gangadharan from Monash University said: "Imagine a scenario where there's so much uncertainty and the outcomes are predominantly luck driven. If you're only rewarding women for successful outcomes, then this can disproportionately hurt them. They're going to be punished for bad luck in a disproportionate way."
