The Bonus Gap You Can't See

Here’s the good news: new research shows that, when it comes to determining bonuses, both men and women are judged on measurable results.

Here’s the bad news: men are also judged on their perceived intentions, while women are not.

According to researchers at the University of Exeter Business School, there's a "gender criteria gap" in how leaders are evaluated and rewarded. 

As the authors of the study, which was this month published in the International Economic Review, put it: "Different criteria are being used to judge and remunerate men and women. For men, outcomes matter, but the underlying perception of what a man has done also matters. For women, only outcomes matter, and the perception of what a woman has done does not."

In other words, when a man delivers a strong result, evaluators may also credit qualities such as leadership, initiative, vision, or strategic thinking. Those perceived intentions can boost assessments of his contribution and, ultimately, his compensation.

Women, by contrast, are more likely to be judged strictly on outcomes alone. If the numbers are good, they are rewarded. If they're not, they're penalized. But they receive less credit for the motivations, effort, or leadership qualities that may have produced those results in the first place.

That matters because bonus decisions are often particularly susceptible to bias. Unlike base salaries, which are typically tied to formal pay bands, market benchmarks, or standardized review processes, bonuses frequently involve more managerial discretion. The criteria can be less transparent and more subjective, creating more room for perceptions and assumptions to influence outcomes. In industries such as banking, where annual bonuses can make up a substantial share of total compensation, even small differences in how employees are evaluated can have significant financial consequences.