Passion Penalizes Women and Advantages (Unexceptional) Men in High-Potential Designations

High potential programs offer a swift path up the corporate ladder for those who secure a place on them. However, the evaluation of “potential” occurs under considerable uncertainty, creating fertile ground for gender bias. We document that men are more likely than women to be designated as high potential, and unpack how gendered responses to employees’ expressions of passion—one of the most commonly used criteria used in evaluating potential—both penalize women and advantage men in high-potential selection processes. First, and based on prior research on gender display rules, we suggest that expressions of passion are viewed as a less appropriate emotional display for women than men, giving rise to a female penalty. Second, and drawing on shifting standards theorizing, we posit that expressions of passion shift evaluators’ predictions of candidates’ future diligence more meaningfully for men than women, creating a male advantage—particularly for men who are reasonably-high but not exceptional performers. We provide supporting evidence across two studies examining placement into high-potential programs in a real talent review setting (N=796) and a pre-registered experiment that uses videos featuring trained actors (N=1,366), supported by two supplementary studies (N=1,590). Taken together, this work sheds light on the ways the increasing emphasis on passion in contemporary workplaces may exacerbate gender inequalities. Progressing our understanding of gender bias beyond gendered reactions to criteria that penalize women (i.e., backlash), our work also unveils a novel and particularly pernicious form of gender bias driven by gendered inferences about passion that advantage men.