The signals we give: performance feedback, gender, and competition

Feedback is vital for growth and learning, yet anecdotal evidence suggests people often hesitate to provide it, and its provision may be shaped by asymmetries and gender-related biases. We study feedback provision across variations in the nature of performance signals, their instrumental value, and the recipient's gender. We find that a surprising degree of both positive and negative feedback is withheld, with a follow-up experiment suggesting that advisors' feedback decisions are driven mainly by transparency- and duty-related considerations, or, to a lesser extent, are motivated by self-serving reasons. Additionally, when initial performance signals are vague, advisors are more likely to withhold non-instrumental negative than positive feedback---an effect we conjecture may be stemming from the lower psychological cost of lying (by omission) under uncertainty. Suggestive evidence shows the difference is more pronounced for female recipients, and exploratory analysis traces this to stronger ego-protective concern by advisors for women than for men.