WOMEN IN TECH THE FACTS

Importantly, having a sponsor can increase satisfaction with job and advancement prospects
for both women and men, as illustrated in Figure 4.5 (Hewlett et al., 2014).
FIG. 4.5 // Satisfied With Rate of Advancement and Promotions
80
70
60
75%
73%
50
40
58%
57%
30
20
10
0
Women
WITH a
Sponsor
Women
with NO
Sponsor
Men
WITH a
Sponsor
Men
with NO
Sponsor
Rerendered from Hewlett et al., 2014
PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTION: We Tend to Develop and Promote
People Who Are Like Us
Gender bias permeates the performance review and promotion process. In one study, almost half
(46 percent) of technical women report that gender bias influences performance evaluations
(Hewlett et al., 2008). Similarly, 1 in 4 technical women reports that women are often seen as
intrinsically less capable than men in their companies. This is higher than in sciences overall where only
16 percent report this phenomenon (Hewlett et al., 2008). In general, technical women are less satisfied
with their companies’ approaches to fairness and voice than women in non-technical roles, men in
technical roles, and men in non-technical roles (Foust-Cummings et al., 2008).
Extensive research on candidate selection processes, recommendation letters, and performance
evaluations confirms the prevalence of gender bias in these processes. Myriad studies demonstrate
that recommendation letters for men (written by both men and women) tend to be longer and contain
more “standout” language (excellent, superb) than letters for women (e.g., Moss-Racusin et al., 2012;
Trix & Psenka, 2003). In contrast, letters for women included more “doubt-raisers” (“she had a somewhat
challenging personality”) and “grindstone” adjectives that made a woman seem like a conscientious
secretary (meticulous, reliable). Similarly, men’s accomplishments are attributed to effort and individual
skill, while women’s accomplishments are more likely to be attributed to luck and easy assignments.
40 WOMEN IN TECH: THE FACTS NCWIT // ncwit.org