Gender inequalities in performance evaluation: a systematic literature review

Purpose This study critically examines how gender inequalities manifest in performance evaluations within professional workplaces. While initially focused on whether and how women's evaluations change after maternity, the review broadens to gendered mechanisms more generally, with sustained attention to motherhood-related dynamics such as flexibility stigma, ideal-worker norms and care responsibilities. By synthesizing 54 empirical studies published between 2009 and 2024, the paper identifies structural and interactional processes that reproduce inequalities, evaluates the evidence on motherhood penalties, and highlights gaps in longitudinal and sectoral coverage to guide future research. Design/methodology/approach The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines to ensure transparency and replicability. Searches were conducted in Scopus and Web of Science (2009–2024) using “performance evaluation,” “gender,” and “work,” restricted to English and Italian publications in the social sciences, management and economics. Only empirical studies addressing individual evaluations in hierarchical workplaces were included; exclusions covered non-hierarchical, clinical, or educational contexts and studies lacking a gender perspective. After screening 1,005 records and applying eligibility criteria, 54 studies were retained. An inductive coding process identified five recurrent themes structuring the synthesis. Findings The review shows that performance evaluations, though formally gender-neutral, consistently reproduce inequalities. Bias enters at multiple levels: criteria setting and managerial incentives, organizational practices shaped by ideal-worker norms, evaluation tools and rating scales, and socio-demographic dynamics in evaluator–evaluatee interactions. Mothers face distinctive penalties through flexibility stigma, time norms and stereotype-driven interpretations of behavior and feedback. Evidence on pre-/post-maternity evaluations remains scarce, limiting causal generalizability. Overall, the findings underscore that motherhood penalties constitute a distinct structural pathway of disadvantage, requiring targeted research and policy interventions. Research limitations/implications The review is limited to peer-reviewed empirical studies published in English between 2009 and 2024, potentially excluding relevant insights from grey literature or non-English contexts. Most included studies are based in Western countries, raising concerns about global generalizability. Future research should expand geographical coverage and investigate intersectional dimensions more systematically. Practical implications Organizations should critically assess the design and implementation of performance evaluation tools to mitigate embedded gender biases. Practices such as structured feedback, joint evaluations and transparency in promotion decisions may reduce disparities. HR departments must also be aware of how motherhood and care responsibilities are systematically penalized in current systems. Social implications Gender-biased performance evaluations contribute to systemic inequalities in income, career advancement and job security. This review underscores the need for more inclusive evaluation frameworks that recognize diverse forms of labor and challenge masculine norms embedded in organizational practices, particularly in relation to care and work-life balance. Originality/value This paper provides the first systematic review synthesizing empirical evidence on gender inequalities in performance evaluation with explicit attention to motherhood. By integrating 54 studies across sociology, psychology, management and economics, it highlights how structural, cultural and interactional mechanisms converge to produce persistent disparities. The focus on motherhood penalties—ideal-worker time norms, flexibility stigma and stereotype-driven feedback—advances understanding beyond general gender bias. The review also identifies key blind spots, including limited longitudinal evidence and sectoral coverage, offering a comprehensive agenda for future research and practical implications for equitable evaluation systems.