Racial bias in evaluations of black leaders' performance

¶ … Multiple Theories in Research

Two theoretical notions that guide Caron and Rosette (2011) study on biases against black leaders are that black's success comes from superior athletics skills while the white success is attributed to their smartness and leadership ability. These notions have greatly impacted how black leaders are evaluated. When black leaders perform poorly in whatever activity s/he is assigned to do people will be quick to say that black folks are not as intelligent, determined or decisive and are therefore not good leaders. The situation is never the same when a black leader does an excellent work. However, the good performance is attributed to compensatory attributes like "he has survival skills'. Good performance is never attributed to actual leadership competence. Evaluation of ones work is therefore based on his/her skin color rather than the actual behavior. Bringing into perspective black and white quarterbacks in Major League Baseball't evaluate the use of the incompetence stereotype or the compensatory talents, black quarterbacks who lost were described as incompetent leaders than white quarterbacks. There were no differing descriptions when the white and the black quarterbacks both won. When black quarterbacks won they were praised for athleticism much more often than the white quarterbacks to infer that black success comes from superior athletics skills while the white success comes from smarts and leadership ability. Black leaders are also down-graded because of their skin colors especially in law firms operated by black and white partners. Metrics used in evaluation are often subjective and do not measure concrete and behavioral issues. I find it very contradictory to allude that African-Americans cannot be good leaders when they perform dismally in their leadership responsibilities while at the same time aver that African's leadership prowess is pure luck and that theirs cannot be tied to leadership ability. Why is it then that white success comes from smarts and leadership ability?

Carton and Rosette are adamant that evaluators keep changing goal posts when it comes to evaluation of black leader's performance outcomes. The duo draws this inference from a popular belief that blacks are not intelligent, determined, or decisive and cannot therefore make good leaders. Unfortunately, this does not feature when a black leader performs well. However, compensatory attributes are attributed to such leader instead of attributing this successful to his actual leadership competence. Core competency is explained away as opposed to being recognized. Such stereotype allow simplistic cognitive shortcut that leads to a leap to negative evaluation based on ones skin color rather than his actual behavior. Black leaders are therefore labeled as incompetent when they fail to perform to others expectations while their white colleagues perceived to be smart and having inherent leadership ability. Blacks' leadership and organizational success are tied to perceptions that they are lucky or have compensatory attributes standing in for actual competence. Black leaders have consequently been down-graded because of their skin color. Under circumstances when there appears to be a gap in leadership skills of gifted black attorneys or paralegals, a second look is taken. Down-grading of the blacks can also be attributed to a culture that expects gifts of one kind, but is resistant to seeing talents of other types. Coworkers also make it difficult for somebody who comes from the minority race difficult. Evaluation of black leaders by others is much skewed.

Attribution theory is a kind of a motivational theory that basically looks at how people make sense about the behaviors of others and of themselves in the context of the environment they are living in. through attribution, people make sense of their world. Individuals are inclined to understanding transient events by attributing them to the actor's disposition or to stable characteristics of the environment. Attribution is done so that an individual achieves cognitive control over his environment by explaining and understanding the causes behind behaviors and environmental occurrences. Attribution is often made by analyzing a situation by making inferences about others' dispositions. One must also make inferences about his disposition and that of the environment. Inferences made give order and predictability and also leads to a behavior. Meaning of a behavior depends on the cause to which it is attributed. Some of the inaccuracies that come about as a result of attribution are misplaced blames that play out between the whites and the blacks. It also blinds people to other causes.

There are a number of attribution theories. Some of the notable ones include Heider and Jones correspondent inference theory, Harold Kelley's covariation model, and Weiner's Model of Achievement Attributions. Attribution theories are involved in asking and answering why questions. They essentially try to figure out what caused something else-that it has been characterized as a basic human activity. Making inferences involves going beyond the information you are given about others and environment. Stereotyping on the hand is all about making generalizations about people without adducing evidences that support such arguments. Recall the all sorts of stereotypes that have been about the black's leadership ability. The thoughts adopted about individuals or certain way of doing things do not necessarily reflect the reality.