Avoid Allowing Biases ....

Not getting this information sent to you directly? Sign up for your FREE monthly Smartmanager newsletter today.   Sign up now!  

-------------------------------------------------------------
Avoid Allowing Biases (Positive or Negative) to Affect Employee Evaluations

Accept that Employee Evaluations Are Difficult in Any Circumstances

Be honest. Writing and delivering employee performance evaluations are  not  at the top of your enjoyable things-to-do list at the workplace. Here’s some breaking news: Almost all of your peers in management in every industry around the globe feel the same way.

Why is it that most managers deny their lack of enthusiasm for employee performance evaluations? Simple human nature. All managers realize that performance evaluations are part of every management job description in all industries. Unless you have a breakthrough method of creating a simpler and factual performance evaluation, you’ll be writing, delivering, and/or approving employee reviews for time immemorial during your management career.

Since you’ve probably already accepted this unfortunate reality, you are ready for the next step. Admit and accept that employee performance evaluations are difficult and move on.

Since performance evaluations are, by definition, subjective and predominately professional opinions, there will always be some level of potential controversy attached to them. Also, it is difficult to meet with a valued staff member and point out one or more performance deficiencies that need correction or improvement. Finally, if evaluations are directly linked to compensation increases, another potentially uncomfortable factor exists.

Since you need to accept this fact of business life, focus on being as objective as possible and concentrate on eliminating as many biases, positive and negative, as you can. Well-known author, speaker, and consultant Robert Bacal has cleverly given names to some of the most common biases – all of which should be avoided in constructing employee performance evaluations to maintain objectivity.

Some Common Biases to Avoid

Murky evaluation standards

If your company uses classic “bucket” type standards (excellent, good, fair, and poor), you have a problem even before you start writing. First, these words mean different things to different people. The “definition problem” is further complicated by the restrictions you face in choosing one evaluation standard for each employee. Finally, the murky nature of these categories offers little help to the employee to improve performance.

Halo effects (or devil effects)

You may have five to ten areas of measurement for employee performance. The  halo bias  may lead you to rank an employee  higher  than he/she should be because of high performance in only two or three areas while the remaining areas may be mediocre. This is tempting, as it makes it somewhat easier to select a composite rating for the employee. But, ask yourself, “How does this help the employee improve those areas that are less than “good” or “excellent”?” Obviously, it doesn’t offer any assistance. The reverse bias leads to the  “devil”  effect, which downgrades the overall evaluation even though some high performance areas exist.

Recency ("what have you done for me lately" bias)

This is a bias that urges you to rate an employee higher (or lower) than warranted because of only recent performance. For example, you are evaluating an employee that, for workplace or personal reasons, underperformed for the first ten months of the rating period. However, in the past two months, the employee’s performance improved dramatically. Forgetting about the ten prior months, you submit a higher rating than is truly deserved. How do you know that the employee didn’t simply ramp up performance knowing that an evaluation was immediately forthcoming? What assurance do you have that the former unsatisfactory areas have been eliminated going forward?

Offer of or lack of opportunity bias

Conditions in the workplace sometimes offer employees a stage on which to shine (or an impossibility to do so), which are totally outside of the staff member’s control. There is a tendency to rate them higher (or lower) because of one or more of these conditions, which is unfair to the employee. Try to eliminate these conditions when you evaluate an employee’s true effort and performance.

Attribution bias (the “system” effect)

This may be the most commonly overlooked or misunderstood bias. Football fans will understand this immediately. How often have you seen a player become a star for one team before moving to another organization wherein the player immediately becomes mediocre – or even fails miserably? Experts often decide that they fit one “system,” but didn’t excel in another. This effect also occurs in business more often than companies want to admit. For example, an employee that likes regimentation and structure performs well for a company that requires staff to curtail creativity and follow instructions to the letter. The employee joins another company that has few rules and values independent thinking and actions. In this system, the employee performs poorly, while giving the same high level effort and dedication. Once again, try to eliminate the “system” factors to create an objective evaluation. Use this knowledge to assist the otherwise-valuable employee to modify their approach in the future.

These are but some of the more common biases that infiltrate employee performance reviews. You should try to minimize or eliminate all biases from your evaluation process. You will feel more confident discussing the review, your employee will benefit from your objectivity to become a better staff member, and your company will appreciate your efforts to build a higher performing team