Performance Rating Errors

The use of ratings assumes (rather naively) that the definition of job performance is clear, that direct measures are available to assess the employee, and that evaluators are reasonably objective and exact. With the misguided conviction that objective criteria are possible, necessary, and desirable, “precise imprecision“ is sought. This illusion of manageability encourages officials to believe that personnel can be manipulated to contain, correct, and/or reverse their behaviors if only they devote a little extra effort to their work. Yet regardless of the appraisal instrument used, a large number of well-known kinds of errors (examined below) occur in the process. These errors result from four primary causes: cognitive limitations, intentional manipulation, organizational influences, and human nature. When errors happen—and they are difficult to prevent—not only is the rater’s judgment called into question, but also the resulting evaluation may leave the ratee unable to judge his or her own performance accurately. Cognitive information processing theory maintains that appraisal is a complex memory task involving data acquisition, storage, retrieval, and analysis. Thus, compatibility error (also known as similarity or liking error) is potent because both compatibility and ratings are person focused. The second mental shortcut is the spillover effect (also known as the halo effect or black mark effect); that is, if the ratee does one thing exceptionally well (halo) or poorly (black mark), then that unfairly reflects on everything else he or she does. Third, the recency effect occurs when a major event has taken place just prior to the time of the evaluation and overshadows all other incidents. Fifth, outcome bias is the tendency of raters to see the result of performance as the most important consideration in an evaluation regardless of whether or not it was the consequence of factors beyond the employee’s control. Fourth, contrast error exists when people are rated relative to other people instead of against performance standards. Finally, actor/observer bias (partially alluded to earlier) occurs when subordinates, as actors, point to external factors to explain their weak performance, whereas supervisors, as observers, attribute that weak performance to the employees. The second general source of rating problems is that appraisals in many organizations are adroitly seen as a political, not necessarily a rational, exercise. Leniency error, also known as friendliness error or the “Santa Claus effect,“ is the consequence of a desire to maintain good working relationships, maximize the size of a merit raise, encourage a marginal employee, show empathy for someone with personal problems, or avoid confrontations (and appeals) with an aggressive worker. Severity error (the “horns effect“) may be present when an appraisal is used as a way either to send a message to a good performer that some aspect of his or her work needs improvement or to shock an average employee into higher performance. Error of central tendency (if not leniency), where nearly all employees are rated as satisfactory—if for no other reason than that higher or lower scores may require time-consuming documentation. Implicit personality theory suggests that people generally judge the “whole person“ based on limited data (stereotyping based on first impressions, or the spillover effect); ratings then tend to justify these global opinions rather than accurately gauge performance. If these issues are successfully confronted, and the evaluation and discipline process improved, then it may be more realistic to take such steps to reduce potential problems than to abolish personnel reviews entirely.