Sturm and Guinier present a persuasive case for why testing
fails as a fair and credible gauge of merit. In their new approach to
selection and inclusion in the workplace, they focus on actual performance
on the job as "the best evidence of the ability to perform."
They propose that a period of demonstrating competence and growing into
a position should give women and minorities greater opportunities to
display their merits and should avert the biases, scars, and resentments
that surround tests. At the Center for Gender in Organizations, we study
the workplace to see how the dynamics of difference play out for women
and minorities, in ways that impact both equity and the effectiveness
with which work gets done. We explore what the experience of the "extremely
interactive and extended selection process" might be like and how
it might still be a test, though a test of a different sort.
Consider the case of "Bernice," the woman who,
as Sturm and Guinier explain, became general counsel of a corporation
after sharing the job with two other lawyers for nine months on a temporary
basis. She networked with top executives who might not otherwise have
seen her in action, showed her mettle by handling crises effectively,
and discovered and honed her skills as a team player. To her surprise,
she made the "final cut," and was offered the position.
This vignette has several features of interest. All eyes
are on Bernice. This pressure might not bring out the best in some candidates
(indeed, the fact that Bernice does not really perceive this period
as an audition and is surprised at her "win" might be a significant
reason for her successful performance). She has to prove herself in
a difficult situation in which the criteria are unclear and emergent.
The audition has some high stakes. In essence, "it’s still
a test."
And Bernice could trip up on this test in a number of
ways. Knowing that she is being watched, she may be concerned about
performance, not just her own, but of the group she manages. In our
research, we have noticed how being "under the microscope"
can cause people to micromanage and tightly control work. Bernice might
engage in this behavior, unrepresentative of her true style, as a form
of self-protection. But it could be read by others as evidence that
she lacks the delegation skills critical for a leader. She will likely
be conservative in her actions and avoid taking risks because she is
being watched closely. Thus, she might be rated as failing to demonstrate
the risk-taking that is regarded as the mark of leadership.
It’s also possible that Bernice will actually demonstrate
the special kinds of skills that she can bring to the job, based on
her different socialization and standpoint. For example, if she does
not know that she is being observed for a promotion, she might practice
her own style of coach-like and team-oriented leadership. But top executives,
especially if they are a relatively homogenous group, might not see
all the benefits this style brings to her work, and might be looking
for traditional top-down leadership style instead. In addition, the
rules of the game can shift along the way. If there is ambiguity about
what constitutes high-level job performance, the pressures to conform
spill over into the dress, speech, and demeanor that the contenders
under scrutiny are expected to display. If Bernice does not play golf,
are her job prospects subtly diminished during this extended test?
Finally, after attaining a position, a candidate from
a different background might start to act more like herself, and perhaps
make changes that enable the organization to appreciate different and
needed types of merit or encourage other women and minorities. Or she
might feel compelled to follow the norms of her predecessors. For a
lone member of a minority group, the test is never really over. And
if the two men who lost this contest to Bernice still bear the familiar
resentment that she got the job because she was a woman, then the scrutiny
and conformity pressures might feel even more intense. Under these circumstances,
it will not be easy to change the organization from the top down.
Rethinking the use of tests is at the heart of this provocative
and important essay. We agree, and suggest rethinking even the subtle,
elongated, and high-pressure tests that might arise from the proposed
alternative. All such tests are still anchored in a world of ranking,
contests, and pyramid-shaped hierarchies, with fewer and fewer plum
jobs as one approaches the top. Making the tests fairer and more closely
linked to actual performance is a first-order fix.
home