Copyright forbes
Happy businesswoman and her male coworker using touchpad in the office. Here's a question that keeps many executives up at night: Are we truly evaluating our leaders fairly, or do unconscious biases shape how we see their performance? It's one thing to champion equality in theory, but quite another to determine whether it translates into actual ratings and assessments that drive promotions, development, and organizational success. 360-degree feedback provides a unique perspective on this question. Unlike controlled academic studies where participants rate hypothetical scenarios or unknown individuals, 360 evaluations capture how people assess colleagues they work with daily—leaders they observe in action, collaborate with on projects, and experience firsthand over extended periods. We analyzed data from over 12,000 workplace evaluations to explore a straightforward question: When people rate leaders they actually know and work alongside, do we see patterns related to the leader's gender? The findings offer encouraging insights for organizations working to create equitable environments while also highlighting where continued attention is needed. This research examines real workplace relationships rather than abstract perceptions, providing practical guidance for leaders and organizations focused on developing talent, reducing bias, and building cultures where everyone can thrive. Is There Bias in the Ratings of Males and Females? The sample itself tells a story about modern organizations: 95% of our raters held management positions themselves, spread across the US, Canada, Europe, South America, and Asia. We deliberately selected only raters who had evaluated both male and female leaders, ensuring we could compare apples to apples. If bias exists in how we evaluate leaders, this data would reveal it. MORE FOR YOU Zenger Folkman Study on Gender Bias in 360s Zenger Folkman What the Numbers Actually Show So, what did we find? The headline might surprise you: both male and female raters consistently rated female leaders slightly higher on overall leadership effectiveness than their male counterparts. Not dramatically higher, but the pattern was there. But the real story emerges when you dig into specific leadership competencies. Women were rated significantly higher on seven key behaviors—things like taking initiative, practicing self-development, and displaying integrity. And here's what's striking: both male and female raters saw these same strengths. This wasn't a case of women championing women or men favoring men. The pattern held across the board. Male raters, for instance, gave women notably higher marks on their ability to inspire and motivate others. Female raters saw women as having significantly more courage to make organizational changes. On only one item out of 49 evaluated did we spot what might be considered a slight male bias—and even there, the difference was marginal. The Peer Perspective: Where Competition Meets Evaluation If bias is going to show up anywhere, it should be among peers. Here's why: our global research consistently shows that peer evaluators are the toughest critics in any 360-assessment. They're the ones in the trenches, competing for the same promotions, fighting for the same resources, and often viewing their colleagues through the lens of "how does this person's success affect mine?" This makes peer ratings the ultimate stress test for gender bias. If men were going to rate women more harshly—or if women were going to exhibit bias against female colleagues—we'd expect to see it here, where competition runs highest and stakes feel most personal. So what happened when we isolated peer-to-peer evaluations? The results mirrored our overall findings almost exactly. Male peers rated their female counterparts slightly higher on overall effectiveness, though the difference wasn't statistically significant. Female peers did the same, with an even smaller gap between how they rated men versus women. Think about what this means: even in the most competitive evaluation relationship—where you might expect self-interest to amplify any existing biases—the pattern held. Peers weren't letting gender cloud their judgment of the colleagues they worked alongside daily. They were rating the person, not making assumptions based on gender. What This Really Means: The Power of Proximity Let's be clear about what this research does and doesn't tell us. Gender bias is real. Decades of academic research consistently demonstrate that when people evaluate resumes with female names, rate professors they've never met, or assess hypothetical scenarios with male versus female protagonists, women face systematic negative bias. That evidence is overwhelming and we're not disputing it. But here's the critical distinction: those studies measure bias toward strangers, toward abstractions, toward the concept of "a woman in leadership." Our research measures something entirely different—how people evaluate leaders they actually know. And that difference changes everything. When you work alongside someone day after day, when you see how they handle a crisis at 4pm on a Friday, when you watch them develop a struggling team member or navigate a difficult stakeholder conversation—the abstract category of "man" or "woman" fades into the background. The individual comes into focus. You're no longer rating a gender; you're rating Jennifer who always follows through, or Marcus who excels at strategic thinking, or Sarah who has a gift for motivating her team. This is the most encouraging finding in our data: proximity dissolves bias. Real relationships, built over time through shared work and genuine interaction, have the power to override our unconscious assumptions. Moving Forward: Building Organizations Where Everyone Thrives So what do leaders do with this insight? Here are three critical mindset shifts: 1. Create opportunities for genuine connection. The antidote to bias isn't another training module—it's real relationships. Structure your organization to maximize cross-functional collaboration, ensure diverse representation in project teams, and create environments where people work together on meaningful challenges. Bias thrives in distance; it withers in proximity. 2. Recognize that perception and performance exist in different worlds. Yes, women may face bias in initial hiring, in resume screening, in first impressions. But our data shows that once women are in leadership roles and working alongside their colleagues, they're evaluated fairly—even favorably—on their actual performance. This means the critical intervention point is getting women into these roles in the first place, where their work can speak for itself. 3. Focus on building cultures of excellence, not just equality. The goal isn't just gender parity in ratings—it's creating environments where all leaders can develop their full potential and be recognized for their unique strengths. Our data shows women excel in certain competencies while men show strength in others. Rather than trying to erase these differences, organizations should value diverse leadership styles and help every leader develop across the full spectrum of capabilities. The path forward isn't about eliminating bias through force of will or policy mandates alone. It's about creating the conditions where bias becomes irrelevant—where people are known, where relationships matter, where individual excellence shines through regardless of gender. That’s not just good for diversity and inclusion. That's good for business, good for culture, and good for every leader trying to make their mark in your organization. Editorial StandardsReprints & Permissions
