The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of gender on the performance assessments of managers arising from the 360‐degree scheme operated within the UK headquarters of a large multi‐international financial services organisation.
A questionnaire approach was used to collect data on 66 managers (33 males and 33 females) against four broad capabilities on the 360‐degree appraisal system. Data were gathered on each of the 66 managers from eight different sources including the individual being appraised, three of their peers, three of their direct reports (subordinates) and their manager (supervisor).
Performance ratings were either gender neutral or higher for female than for male managers. Within the case company there was no evidence of unfavourable discrimination against female managers, if anything the reverse with female managers showing superior performance compared to their male counterparts.
As with all cross‐sectional research causality cannot be confirmed and difficulties in accessing 360‐degree appraisal information for a large number of managers led to constraints on research methodology.
The implication for human resource management is that the 360‐degree appraisal system did not necessarily fulfil the degree of objectivity claimed by its adherents and that possible adverse influence may be inherent within the 360‐degree rating system of managers particularly.
The paper offers insights into gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals.
