The issue of whether sexual sympathies can influence objectivity, fairness, and equity in professional evaluations has been debated for years in academic circles and among professionals working in various fields. The debate is not new.
It has been discussed extensively in the field of psychology since the early twentieth century when Freud's theories of psychoanalysis emerged.
It has gained more attention recently due to increased awareness of gender and cultural differences, along with the growing need for diverse perspectives in decision-making processes that impact people from different backgrounds. In this article, I will discuss how sexual sympathies can lead to biased judgments in professional assessments and outline strategies that may be used to counteract these biases.
The objective evaluation of a person's performance in their job, education, athletics, artistic pursuits, or other endeavors should not depend on personal interests, prejudices, or emotions related to sex, gender, race, ethnicity, age, religion, political affiliation, physical appearance, financial status, social class, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, or parental status. This principle guides many organizations and institutions worldwide as they strive to ensure equality, objectivity, and fairness in their operations.
It is often difficult to apply in practice because individuals involved in making decisions regarding hiring, promotion, salary determination, or other forms of evaluation tend to have subjective views based on their preferences and experiences. It could be argued that such preferences are natural and unavoidable because humans are social animals and form opinions about others based on what they perceive as desirable traits or qualities.
If unchecked, such biases can result in unequal treatment, leading to unfairness, discrimination, and even legal action against employers, educational institutions, sports associations, or other entities where evaluation takes place.
1: Sexual Sympathies Can Distort Objectivity
When making evaluations, people tend to favor those who share similar characteristics with them, including sex, gender, sexuality, and other aspects of identity.
A man might find it easier to relate to another man than to a woman when assessing work performance or creativity. A heterosexual person may be more comfortable evaluating the performance of someone of the same sexual orientation than a homosexual one. Similarly, a Caucasian person may feel more at ease judging the work of another Caucasian person than that of an African-American. These tendencies lead to a distorted perception of the true value of each individual's contribution, resulting in unfair or inaccurate assessments. This bias has been documented in several studies involving job interviews, promotions, salaries, grades, sports competitions, and other evaluative processes.
Researchers found that women were more likely to hire men than women for high-level positions in organizations. This finding was consistent across different countries, industries, and types of jobs. The study revealed that this bias is not only related to male chauvinism but also stems from a perception that women are less capable and effective leaders. Another study showed that male athletes received higher grades than female athletes when evaluated by coaches, even though their performance levels were comparable. Similarly, black students often receive lower grades than white students in academic settings, despite performing equally well in tests and assignments.
2: Strategies to Reduce Biases
To address these biases, institutions can implement policies and procedures that promote objectivity, fairness, and equity. One strategy is to use blind assessment methods whereby personal information about individuals is removed before evaluation.
Recruiters could remove names and gender identities from resumes before shortlisting candidates for interviews. In education, teachers could evaluate student essays without knowing who wrote them until after grading. Coaches could watch athlete performances without knowing their sex, race, ethnicity, or age. These measures ensure that decisions made regarding promotion, hiring, awards, or scholarships are based on merit rather than prejudices.
Another strategy is to train employees, educators, and professionals on the dangers of biases and how they affect decision-making processes.
Managers should be aware that preferring one person over another because of their gender or sexual orientation leads to discrimination, which can result in legal action against an organization. Educational institutions should teach students and faculty members about implicit bias and how it can cloud judgment, leading to unfair treatment. Professionals must also be sensitized to recognize their biases and work towards eliminating them through self-reflection and conscious efforts to seek out diverse perspectives during evaluations.
Sexual sympathies have the potential to distort objectivity in professional assessments if left unchecked.
Organizations and institutions can mitigate this risk by implementing blind assessment methods, training personnel on recognizing biases, and promoting diversity in all forms of decision-making.
Can sexual sympathies distort objectivity, fairness, or equity in professional assessments?
No, they do not necessarily distort objectivity, fairness, or equity in professional assessments as long as individuals remain aware of their biases and take steps to mitigate them. Sexual sympathies may influence an individual's perception of others, but this does not necessarily mean that it will affect their ability to make objective decisions in a professional context.