Leadership evaluation in an organizational context emerges as a significant managerial tool to shape and nurture effective leaders despite the social identity-based informed biases and perceptions. Several existing studies highlight social misappropriation regarding leadership evaluation, with most of them concentrating on racial biases and perception, among other demographic oddities used by individuals and groups to stereotype others without knowing them. One of those studies by Carton and Rosette (2011) adopted vital theoretical frameworks for identifying social-informed biases and prejudices faced by Black leaders representing a minority group in a dominantly white society. The romance-of-leadership theory argues for success as a predictive factor for a positive evaluation of Black leaders, while leader categorization theory focuses on the existing prejudices that expose Black leaders to negative evaluations by others (Carton & Rosette, 2011). The review elaborates on the identified models, explaining and conceptualizing leadership evaluation while identifying critical socially-informed prejudices to explain the evaluators’ reactions to the black leader’s performance. The analysis incorporates Hammond et al.’s (2021) findings to expound on the theoretical conceptualization of Black leaders’ evaluation considering social biases and perceptions challenges.
Deconstructing the Models of Leadership Evaluation
When judging and evaluating leaders, evaluators likely base their decisions and actions on inference-based processing or romance-of-leadership theory. As revealed by Carton and Rosette (2011), evaluators refer to the internal attributes of the leader from performance traits and indicators irrespective of their racial identity. A leader will be evaluated on success or failure, whether Black or white. In that case, the romance-of-leadership approach reinforces the merit-based cognitive processing of the lead evaluator, suppressing or eliminating instances of racial prejudices. The model presents an ideal universal leadership evaluation spectrum that uses data and results to measure and establish an effective leader. There is an effective objectiveness to the evaluation exercise where the leader being evaluated would not have to worry about their social identity, especially if they contradict their evaluator’s. Still, experts in organizational leadership identify the unconscious bias of evaluators, which is not effectively covered by the inference-based processing theory concerning the evaluation of Black leaders. Therefore, the model’s implication to leadership evaluation is that the merit-based approach positively evaluates leaders.
On the other hand, leader categorization theory foregoes the notion of information-oriented perception to front a biased evaluation of a leader based on preformed prejudices about the subject’s identity. As per the model, an evaluator will rely on the preexisting mental schemata of an effective and ineffective leader to establish if their subjects have the requisite attributes of a leader, exposing them to favorable or subjective processes (Carton & Rosette, 2011). Generally, the black race is stereotypically attributed to undesired societal traits and outcomes, including crime, incompetence, and lack of integrity. The historical racism in the United States favors the whites with desired attributes of an influential personality while disadvantaging blacks and other minority groups, the perception that spills over to the leadership evaluation process. Stakes are high that a Black leader will not benefit from their merits in case the evaluator relies on their preformed mental position on what constitutes a competent and an incompetent leader. Thus, leader categorization theory reveals disparity issues concerning leadership assessment and evaluation where existing social constructions on race are unjustly used to discredit a black person’s efficiency as a leader, even if the merit data says otherwise.
Implications to Leadership Evaluation
From the two models, leadership evaluation based on inference processes prioritizes performance, while leaders’ assessment is drawn from recognition processes informed by racial prejudices and targets Black leaders, which creates a contradiction. A black leader is guaranteed positive evaluation when under the inference process because their merit data outshine any social barrier, a discrepancy that is dominant when they are exposed to negative assessment when the recognition process is in play (Carton & Rosette, 2011). In some cases, evaluators rely on both their inferences and recognition, necessitating the need to merge or integrate the two processes regarding leadership evaluation. The process is crucial in eliminating the discrepancies in merging both performance metrics and evaluators’ attrition toward social biases and perceptions. Significantly, the complex nature of the identified complication between inference and recognition is critical to understanding process-based barriers facing black leaders who may find their accomplishments outdone by preformed prejudices that devalue their leadership attributes linked to their racial identity.
Several theories are adopted by Carton and Rousset to deconstruct inference and cognition, given how their contradictory application results in negative evaluations of black leaders. Carton and Rousset (2011) based their arguments on information processing theories to prove how an evaluator’s perception of a leader informs the evaluation process. In most cases, people filter and organize information while referencing their surroundings, a trend that equally affects leadership evaluators. As a result, Carton and Rousset (2011) decomposed leadership and inference using the attribution theory to help the reader gain insight into the issue. In that case, attribution theory proposes that people understand their environment by making inferences regarding other people’s attributes, creating cause-and-effect relationships, or simply associating positive outcomes to positive attributes and vice versa (Carton & Rousset, 2011). Through attribution theory, Carton and Rousset support the premise of merit-oriented leadership evaluation when inference is in effect. Inferences offer practicality to leadership evaluation where the evaluator makes a decision after observing their subject and relevant evidence, minimizing stereotyping instances.
Carton and Rousset also apply the concept of stereotypes to reconcile leadership and recognition. According to Carton and Rousset (2011), “perceivers have prototypes of leaders that encompass conventional leadership characteristics” (p. 1143). It is important to note that stereotypes inform the ideal prototypes via the cognition process. When an evaluator indulges in the recognition process, they can evaluate a black leader without meeting them or reviewing their merit information. They already have a mental picture of who a black person is and what constitutes a desired or competent leader. For example, in the United States, the typical black stereotypes that influence the recognition process include criminal, poor, and lazy, which are all undesired traits of a competent leader. A two-factor model of agency suggests competence as the perception driver of leadership in evaluators (Carton & Rousset, 2011). With such performed stereotypical markers, an evaluator will negatively assess a black leader even if they are successful. The leadership competence identified in the two-factor model of the agency will be shadowed by stereotypes, negatively affecting black leaders’ evaluation.
Furthermore, inference and recognition will likely contradict each other when engaging in leadership evaluation. The inference process perceives performing black leaders as competent, which is not the case with recognition, which will perceive them as failures because blacks are presumed incompetent (Carton & Rousset, 2011). In such an instance, there is a mismatch between the evaluator balancing inference and recognition, negatively affecting the entire leadership evaluation process. Carton and Rousset (2011) suggest that perceivers try to balance inference and cognition, resulting in an effective leadership evaluation process. Specifically, an evaluator or perceiver identifying their prejudices towards a black leader minimizes instances of inference-recognition mismatch during the evaluation process.
There is a need to reconcile the contradiction between inference and recognition through goal-based stereotyping, as identified in the study. The goal-based stereotyping model insists that undesired stereotypes are formed after proof of failure, while positive, wider-but-not-leadership-related stereotypes are used in cases of success (Carton & Rousset, 2011). There is a likelihood that a black leader may be affected by both notions, but aligning reference and cognition eliminates the contradiction to help front an improved leadership evaluation process. The resulting micro-sensitive way of thinking allows evaluators to hold on to their perspectives of black leaders’ competency while accommodating exceptions such as success. Assessors adjust their adoption of stereotypes relying on the performance outcomes of black leaders, which is essential in enhancing the efficiency of the leadership assessment process. When evaluators adopt goal-based stereotyping, they attain an enlightened impression of black leaders, where they formulate performance-specific goals to suppress the contradiction between inference and recognition (Carton & Rousset, 2011). It means that with goal-based stereotyping, an evaluator will prioritize a black leader’s merit information over the prejudiced perception that black people are lazy and incompetent leaders.
Reflecting on Hammond et al. (2021) Study Findings
Hammond et al. (2021) study of a comprehensive conceptualization of leadership evaluation theories builds on Carton and Rosette’s relayed insights. A relatable reference to inference and recognition is conducting a theory-testing procedure on the romance of leadership theory. The study findings suggest that leadership evaluators will judge leadership attributes primarily on firm performance more favorably regarding profitability, growth, and ability to generate results (Hammond et al., 2021). These findings align with inference-based processing, which is result-oriented leadership evaluation instead of recognition processing. Still, Hammond et al. recognize that non-leadership factors capture racial prejudices, which supports the inference approach to leadership evaluation ideal to black leaders. Hammond et al. give valuable conclusions about the goal-oriented preservation of stereotypes in leadership evaluation and the difficulties of dealing with racism in practice. As much as Hammond et al. support inference to leadership evaluation, their arguments identify significant systemic challenges in dealing with prejudices relatable among black leaders.
Also, Hammond et al. (2021) failed to replicate Carton and Rosette’s models of leadership evaluation, which calls into question the relevance and applicability of the latter in the current organizational settings. In their findings, Hammond et al. (2021) did not establish how leadership attribution affects evaluations within the company under the success or failure conditions regardless of the leader’s gender. In this instance, we can relate their findings to black leaders’ perceptions within an organizational context. Hammond calls for significant scrutiny of inference and recognition aspects related to leadership evaluation. Today, there are many factors to consider, such as scientific and technological innovation, market uncertainties, and the overall business environment, which can make race a non-issue. Logically, organizations are under scrutiny, and evaluators are unlikely to engage in racism because it can affect the company’s corporate reputation. As a result, Hammond demands thorough scrutiny of the romance of leadership theory, significantly defended by Carton and Rosette.
Conclusion
Leadership evaluators rely on inference-based processes and recognition-based processes to deconstruct an effective leader. Carton and Rosette’s (2011) study, alongside Hammond et al. (2021) insights, bring forth an elaborate picture of the dynamics surrounding the appraisal of black leaders. The idea of inference-based and recognition-based processing, plus the idea of goal-based stereotyping, enables us to comprehensively understand some of the obstacles for black leaders in being fairly judged for what they have accomplished. The current analysis not only endorses the theoretical contributions of these studies but also pinpoints the practical application for dealing with and beating discrimination in leaders’ evaluations in an organizational environment. Leader evaluation is ongoing and calls for further studies, research, and training so that future leaders can be evaluated beyond the boundaries of racial stereotypes.
References
Carton, A. M., & Rosette, A. S. (2011). Explaining bias against black leaders: Integrating theory on information processing and goal-based stereotyping. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1141-1158. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41413613
Hammond, M. M, Schyns, B., Vogelgesang Lester, G., Clapp-Smith, R., & Shumski Thomas, J. (in press). The romance of leadership: Rekindling the fire through replication of Meindl and Ehrlickh. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101538 Available in the Trident Online Library.
write