Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers
Abstract
This study helps to fill a significant gap in the literature on organizations and inequality by investigating the central role of merit-based reward systems in shaping gender and racial disparities in wages and promotions. The author develops and tests a set of propositions isolating processes of performance-reward bias, whereby women and minorities receive less compensation than white men with equal scores on performance evaluations. Using personnel data from a large service organization, the author empirically establishes the existence of this bias and shows that gender, race, and nationality differences continue to affect salary growth after performance ratings are taken into account, ceteris paribus. This finding demonstrates a critical challenge faced by the many contemporary employers who adopt merit-based practices and policies. Although these policies are often adopted in the hope of motivating employees and ensuring meritocracy, policies with limited transparency and accountability can actually increase ascriptive bias and reduce equity in the workplace.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In firms that use mathematical formulas to link compensation to objective ratings, managers resist by interpreting scores subjectively to pay their cronies more.
“In firms that use mathematical formulas to link compensation to objective ratings, managers resist by interpreting scores subjectively to pay their cronies more (Castilla, 2008;Shwed and Kalev, 2014).”
From Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization (2017) · cites this paper as Castilla, 2008
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,542 · see citing works
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532 · see citing works
Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667029 · Cited by 2,971 · see citing works
Process Analysis: Estimating Mediation in Treatment Evaluations
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981) · Evaluation Review · doi:10.1177/0193841x8100500502 · Cited by 2,442 · see citing works
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052 · see citing works
Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657301 · Cited by 939 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…field-based literature on employer evaluation bias (e.g., Mobley 1982; Tsui and Gutek 1984; Pulakos et al. 1989) and even biased self-assessments (Ridgeway 1997; Correll 2001).7 Individual-level accounts, common in early psychological and organizational behavior studies, argue that, for various…”
BackgroundAccountability and the Perseverance of First Impressions
Tetlock, P. E. (1983) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3033716 · Cited by 513 · cited 2× · see citing works
“According to experimental research on accountability, when decision makers know they will be held accountable for their decisions, bias is less likely to occur (Tetlock 1983, 1985; Tetlock and Kim 1987).”
BackgroundDouble Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women
Foschi, M. (1996) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2787021 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Operating Room: Relational Spaces and Microinstitutional Change in Surgery
Kellogg, K. C. (2009) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/603535 · Cited by 574 · see citing works
The White standard: racial bias in leader categorization
Rosette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. W. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.758 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
Mijs, J. J. B. (2016) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0228-0 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
A Multi-Level Process Model for Understanding Diversity Practice Effectiveness
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0044 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Engendering Change: Organizational Dynamics and Workplace Gender Desegregation, 1975–2005
Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J. (2010) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.255 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Kunze, F., & Menges, J. I. (2017) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2129 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Li, D., Raymond, L., & Bergman, P. (2020) · doi:10.3386/w27736 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Blair-Loy, M., Rogers, L., Glaser, D., Wong, Y., Abraham, D., & Cosman, P. (2017) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci6010029 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017) · The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism · doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n32 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Anti-racist actions and accountability: not more empty promises
Boykin, C. M., Brown, N. D., Carter, J. T., Dukes, K., Green, D. J., Harrison, T., Hebl, M., McCleary-Gaddy, A., Membere, A., McJunkins, C. A., et al. (2020) · Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/edi-06-2020-0158 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
MARTIN, G., DYMOCK, D., BILLETT, S., & JOHNSON, G. (2014) · Ageing and Society · doi:10.1017/s0144686x12001432 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Castilla, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Castilla, Emilio J.
- ORCID
- Castilla, Emilio J.
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1479-1526
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W2023640597
- Cited by
- 717
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 30
- FWCI
- 35.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Keywords
- meritocracy, gender inequality, racial inequality, wage inequality, workplace equity, performance evaluation (human resources), wage growth, organizational inequality
- MeSH terms
- Career Mobility, Commerce, Employee Performance Appraisal, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, North America, Organizations, Prejudice, Salaries and Fringe Benefits, Sex Factors, Women, Working, Organizational Policy, Private Sector, Organizational Case Studies, Racial Groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
