Challenging Assumptions: Gender, Peer Evaluations, and the Broken Rung in Leadership Trajectories

Abstract

The concept of the ‘glass ceiling’ represents the significant barriers that women face in climbing the corporate hierarchy, but recently, the focus has shifted to the ‘broken bottom rung’, where women are bypassed for initial leadership roles. This paper investigates the impact of gender on performance evaluations, particularly female-to-female peer ratings, which are critical to career progression. Our study tested three hypotheses about the disparity in female allyship within professional contexts. Participants (N = 160) from psychology classes in 2018–2019 evaluated their peers in project teams using five ITPMetrics measures. Contrary to previous research suggesting that women receive more critical evaluations than men, this study found no evidence supporting such bias. However, it revealed that women scored higher in process-based skills rather than outcome-based skills, aligning with role congruity theory and the notion of gendered skills. These findings highlight the need for further research into female peer evaluations and their impact on career advancement. This study challenges assumptions about women’s roles in the workplace and advocates for organizations reconsidering the emphasis placed on performance appraisals, proposing alternative assessment methods to foster more equitable and inclusive professional environments.