Performance appraisal

Performance appraisal

A variety of techniques can help companies minimize performance rater biases. Review the “Case study 6-4. After reviewing the case, answer the questions 1 and 2.

Include a brief introduction of the case and critically evaluate the current situation of Expert Engineering Inc. It is essential to present an in-depth analysis of the case and integrate sufficient support from scholarly sources. Support your statements with logic and argument, citing sources referenced.

A veteran Engineer, by the name Demetri, worked for Expert Engineering, Inc. under different engineer capacities for nearly 15 years. The company has a unique and long performance evaluation timeline. The firm recently promoted him to the position of principal. At Expert Engineering, Inc., principals are responsible for evaluating engineers in tandem with the founders’ philosophy of multiple source evaluation and feedback to circumvent favoritism and foster a merit-based culture. Additionally, the company has a history of adapting quality review meetings and performance appraisal forms to promote accurate performance evaluations. Recently, the firm initiated a large-scale hiring initiative of engineers, of whom nine were Purdue University graduates like the new principal, Demetri. He was active in advancing the hiring effort. Other principals are tense and dissatisfied because they anticipate an era of unchecked favoritism, skewed performance ratings, and unfair promotions that have just started.

Question 1:  provide a detailed discussion of the intentional and unintentional rating distortion factors that may come into play in this situation

Various distortion factors can influence raters when evaluating the performance of their subordinate or rating the skills or knowledge of job applicants. These factors can either be intentional or unintentional. Central tendency bias is one of the most popular forms of distortion that can influence a rater performance review. Every time a performance review uses a five or three-point scale, they tend to concentrate the majority of rates in the middle. The bias occurs when principals are examining a low performer and cannot convince themselves to rate them depressed because of an inherent concern not to injure the employee’s confidence. This situation is particularly difficult for low performers since it downplays the need for the employees to improve. These employees are likely to escape admonition about the areas they need to improve.

Another distractor related to the rating is the recency and spillover bias. It refers to the ability of individuals to recall an employee performance can significantly influence the result of the appraisal. Recalling the way each employee performed is almost impossible, as remembering projects done at the beginning of the year can be difficult. Therefore, raters can choose to rely on the ratee’s latest performance, thereby downplaying the bigger picture, which constitutes recency bias. On the other hand, spillover bias occurs when managers continue to base their appraisal on the past performance overlooking recent improvements or deterioration. The inability to recall can result in under-ranking or over-ranking of the individuals being appraised.

The third distractor during performance appraisal is negativity bias. More frequent reviews necessitate the superiors to provide timely feedback to the subjects so that they can improve. When employees become more acquainted with receiving feedback, they tend to increase their competence concerning analyzing and using it effectively for the benefits of the employer and themselves. Nevertheless, many raters are deficient in this skill. Naturally, humans have a bias towards adverse circumstances. It represents some form of natural defense mechanism that makes people survive by recalling a situation and avoid it. It can trigger fear and anger emotions that can hinder professional development.

The final distortion factor is the halo effect, which occurs when raters harbor overtly positive regard of a specific employee, as is the case with Dimitri favoritism for Purdue university graduates. The distortion occurs by hindering the objectivity of the reviews, as raters tend to rate employees with a particular characteristic favorably. People tend to confirm their preconceived beliefs about people of a specific background, which reflects in the interpretation and recall of performance, a distortion called confirmatory bias.

The halo effect results from the consequence of people sharing some similarities or affinity bias with specific characteristics, such as cultural background or in the case of the educational experience. Individuals tend to favor others who are similar to them in some aspects. The favoritism that occurs from a similarity bias can give some subjects an unfair edge over others. The employees are likely to get additional training, better appraisals, and more opportunities for advancement.

Question 2: evaluate the kinds of interventions you could implement to minimize intentional rating distortion and the reasons that you have described. What do you recommend and why?

To overcome central tendency bias, raters should base their appraisals on specific skills or use tools that are competencies oriented rather than comparing between employees. For example, because of the differences in strengths and weaknesses, the performance appraisal process should seek to enhance the advantages of the rate and reduce or avoid the vulnerability. Performance appraisal should include the rates of strengths and weaknesses. Managers are encouraged to highlight these aspects in every review to formulate a successful development plan.

Recency and spillover bias can be avoided by adopting a quarterly review of the employees’ performance because principals can more easily recall the projects undertaken by each rate. Therefore, bi-annual or quarterly reports can reduce this form of distortion. However, the frequency of appraisal translates to more cost or losses in the way of funds or time. Nevertheless, the benefits of this approach can outweigh the cost and consequences of distorted ratings.

To overcome negativity bias, managers can help their subordinates develop a growth mindset to feedbacks by undertaking it consistently throughout the year. Besides, the principals can train their subjects to analyze the appraisal reviews. It means the employee who is being appraised underestimates their ratings because of previous experiences of the appraisal.

To overcome halo effects, confirmatory, and similarity bias, employers should not base performance appraisal on individual perception. Alternatively, companies must adopt a 360-degree assessment, which involves multiple raters evaluating the performance of a subject. The appraiser can be managers, colleagues, and outsiders, such as customers. Reviews from various sources work to minimize bias in the performance appraisal.