Extensive research reveals employer biases against workers with career disruptions, particularly those related to caregiving. However, the effectiveness of organizational practices intended to mitigate such biases is less well understood. This study examines the use of COVID-19 impact statements in tenure decisions at research universities, an organizational intervention that was designed to reduce biases but raised concerns that it might inadvertently amplify them. Contrary to concerns about unintended consequences, a pre-registered survey experiment with 602 full professors in STEM fields reveals that the inclusion of impact statements leads to more favorable tenure evaluations, regardless of faculty gender and disruption type. Qualitative evidence suggests that perceptions of pandemic-related disruptions as legitimate, externally imposed, time-limited events in the past help circumvent previously documented biases. This study enhances our understanding of organizational practices that effectively mitigate biases and points to the potential role of narrative framing in workplace evaluations and organizational inequalities.

Close

广泛的研究表明，雇主对职业中断的员工存在偏见，尤其是那些与护理相关的员工。然而，旨在减轻此类偏见的组织实践的有效性却鲜为人知。本研究探讨了研究型大学终身教职决策中使用 COVID-19 影响陈述的情况，这是一种组织干预措施，旨在减少偏见，但引发了人们的担忧，即它可能会无意中放大偏见。与对意外后果的担忧相反，一项针对 STEM 领域 602 名正教授的预先注册调查实验表明，无论教师性别和颠覆类型如何，纳入影响陈述都会带来更有利的终身教职评估。定性证据表明，将与流行病相关的破坏视为过去合法的、外部强加的、有时限的事件有助于规避以前记录的偏见。这项研究增强了我们对有效减少偏见的组织实践的理解，并指出了叙事框架在工作场所评估和组织不平等中的潜在作用。

 关闭