How Personal Bias in Performance Appraisals Can Unfairly Impact Employee Ratings

Common Rating Errors in Performance Appraisal

In performance appraisal, there are several common rating errors that can impact the evaluation process. Some of these errors include the halo effect, central tendency, leniency or strictness bias, recency bias, and contrast effect. The halo effect occurs when an appraiser rates an employee high on all criteria because of excellence in one area. Central tendency bias happens when the appraiser rates all employees as average, regardless of their actual performance. Leniency or strictness bias involves consistently rating employees too high or too low. Recency bias occurs when the appraiser focuses only on recent performance, overlooking earlier achievements or challenges. The contrast effect influences ratings based on comparisons with other employees rather than objective standards.

Impact of Personal Bias on Performance Appraisal

Personal bias plays a significant role in performance appraisal as it can distort evaluations and lead to unfair assessments. The appraiser's personal biases, such as stereotypes, prejudices, or preferences, can influence how they perceive and rate an employee's performance. These biases can result in inaccurate ratings, affecting an employee's career progression, morale, and overall performance management within the organization. It is essential for appraisers to be aware of their biases and strive to evaluate performance objectively based on established criteria and evidence.

I think one error that we could actually locate in performance appraisals is when the performance appraisal system is not objective. Meaning you rate the person based on how you see them, unlike if you have a performance appraisal that is based on performance targets, it would be a lot more objective.

What I mean is that the boss and the subordinate should sit together and discuss the subordinate's performance targets for the next 6 months or 3 months. Then, deadlines and procedures on how to proceed should be established. At least every quarter, you should discuss the targets that have been accomplished and how you plan to achieve the remaining targets that were not met.

Hi!

Subjectivity and bias are almost always present in any human activity. In philosophy, it is said that whenever something is "expressed" by a subject, such expression is "subjective." Bias can be a preferential (positive) or negative (dislike) treatment of one over the other (whether person or a thing), for whatever reason. A subjective judgment (e.g., performance rating) can transform into positive or negative feedback on the person being evaluated, depending on what was given as a "rating" by the rater/superior.

That's why in our system, we are trying to move closer to quantifiable performance indicators and targets. We believe that when parameters are easily understood, measured, and/or quantified, it can greatly reduce subjectivity and possibly bias in the evaluation process.

Best wishes,

Ed Llarena, Jr.
Managing Partner
Emilla Consulting

More than subjective biases, there is an inherent systemic bias in favor of the appraiser (the boss). For more, read this paper "Why Your Boss Is Programmed to Be a Dictator" at www.changethis.com.

The article shows how until we correct this systemic bias, we will not be able to correct the subjective bias.

Personal biases affect the performance appraisal because when a person appraises his subordinate, he is aware of all aspects of the subordinate's profile, such as job knowledge, behavior, and attitude. However, biases arise when a person has more than one subordinate because the appraiser may consider who directly follows instructions or requires less effort to manage. Many times, superiors are biased in their assessments and appraise individuals who may not be as competent as others. This behavior and attitude play a negative role, leading to less dedication from competent employees and reduced motivation.