What are some of the common biases and errors that affect performance appraisal and feedback processes?

Halo and horn cognitive biases will not encourage equity in a workplace since performance appraisal is based on certain and personal criteria. To avoid such in an organization, it is important to set an organization standard as criteria where employee needs to perform to the level of expectation to be rated and appraised.

Using behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) is a valuable method for developing objective and standardized criteria in performance ratings. Interviewing employees using the critical incident technique identifies examples of exemplary, average, and subpar performance for BARS, which provides specific, observable behaviors. This approach significantly diminishes the potential for subjective biases, offering a more concrete and reliable evaluation framework. A significant drawback of using BARS for a more objective performance evaluation is the initial investment of time and financial resources.

Think of it like wearing rose-colored glasses or seeing through a cloudy lens. The halo effect makes us see someone as all-around great just because they shine in one area, like communication skills. On the flip side, the horn effect makes one slip-up or weakness overshadow everything else, painting a gloomier picture. These biases mess with performance reviews, making them feel overrated or underrated. To counter them, we have to be mindful of our biases, use fair criteria, and gather feedback from different angles.

Humans are prone to a number of biases in nearly all tasks they perform, and appraisals are no exception to this. Halo and Horn Effects are similar but opposite in nature. For instance, if your colleagues consider you attractive and extroverted, they might also subconsciously assume that you are a top performer when that might not actually be the case, and the two concepts (charm or extroversion and performance) might not be significantly correlated. Awareness of the existence of these biases goes a long way in their minimization where necessary. Accordingly, methods such as BARS and 360-degree feedback may be utilized.

Imagine trying to remember everything you did over the past year, but only recalling what happened in the last few weeks. That’s what happens when evaluators focus too much on recent events and overlook everything that came before. So, if an employee had a great or terrible last month, it might unfairly color the whole year's evaluation. This is the recency effect. Primacy effect is like the recency effect but flipped. If someone made a strong impression early on, whether good or bad, that initial impression might stick with the evaluator more than it should. It’s like judging a book by its first chapter and ignoring the rest.

There are several benefits to keeping track of your achievements at work, including combating impostor syndrome, identifying strong points to include in your resume, and avoiding recency bias in performance appraisal. An employee may not remember what they did several months ago that added value to the organization, and their supervisor is less likely to remember, so maintaining a record benefits both parties.

Recency and primacy effects are rampant in performance appraisal processes because of one main thing: supervisors and managers are not taught to have a critical incidents file for each member of their team. This means that when they sit down to evaluate a team member - they are reliant on what happened at the beginning of the relationship that has painted everything (primacy effect) OR on what happened in the last week or month that is "fresh" in mind (recency effect). They are reliant on memory and memory is fickle. The trouble with this is: it's not fair to the person being evaluated. My suggestion: have a critical incident file for each employee on your team where you write down the good and the not-so-good and don't rely on your memory.

Some evaluators are just naturally kind and give everyone higher ratings than they deserve. While this feels good in the short term, it doesn’t help employees understand where they need to improve. The opposite of leniency bias, where the evaluator is too harsh and gives lower ratings than deserved. This can crush morale and demotivate even the best employees.

Sometimes, managers or evaluators might blame an employee’s poor performance on their attitude or personality without looking at external factors. For example, if an employee misses deadlines, a manager might think they’re lazy or disorganized. But in reality, they might be struggling with outdated software or not getting enough support from their team.

When giving performance feedback, it's important to be specific and balance both positive feedback and constructive criticism. Being specific involves providing specific examples of where your feedback is coming from. When did the employee demonstrate this strength? What impact does lacking a certain skill look like on the job? How do these strengths and developmental needs impact the individual's effectiveness? It's also important to consider how you can help the employee leverage their strengths and develop their weaknesses. Being able to turn feedback into action is key for creating growth and change.

Common Biases and Errors in Performance Appraisal and Feedback: - Halo Effect Example: Letting one good trait, like being friendly, influence overall ratings. - Recency Effect Example: Focusing on recent performance instead of the entire review period. - Leniency Bias Example: Giving higher ratings to avoid conflict, which can inflate scores. - Central Tendency Bias Example: Rating everyone as average to avoid extremes, missing true performance levels. - Confirmation Bias Example: Looking for information that supports existing opinions while ignoring other facts. Being aware of these biases can help make performance appraisals fairer and more accurate.

Meta-analysis shows that the attachment style of managers has an impact on performance appraisal results. If I want to explain the research results based on my experiences, the following example describes this well: Consider a manager who has an avoidant attachment style. Because of this type of attachment style, this manager avoids conflict and challenge with others, and as a result, he/she have cognitive errors in performance appraisal and gives high scores to his employees so that he does not experience conflict and challenge when giving feedback.