Performance appraisals have proven to be one of the best ways to improve employees’ productivity and enhance outcomes.
This periodic evaluation of staff performance provides feedback on their strengths and weaknesses, enhances subsequent output, helps identify and reward high-performing members of staff, and determines appropriate salary upgrades.
Despite its numerous benefits, a lot of mistakes — sometimes known as rater errors — from a supervisor’s biased viewpoint can result in low morale, anxiety, poor job satisfaction, or even loss of job. It is therefore pertinent that supervisors, managers, and human resources personnel understand these biases and how to eliminate them during appraisal exercises.
These few points present some of the pitfalls that must be avoided and how to overcome them:
1. Central Tendency or Grouping
In this instance appraiser rates staff in a not-too-good or not-too-bad category. This is unfair to employees who really deserve a higher grade.
In this light line managers should establish and agree on SMART Key Performance Index (KPI) at the beginning of the appraisal period and evaluate performance against these goals. Also, observable behaviour should be documented over the entire performance cycle through attachment of supporting document on HumanManager Management Software.
2. The Halo or Horns Effect
This occurs when the appraiser allows specific positive or negative factors related to the employee’s work affect the overall performance assessment.
Line managers should track, and document performance based on agreed KPIs daily, weekly, monthly, bi-annually, or annually. Identify specific behavioural attributes that support your ratings and be sure that none is influenced because it is particularly admirable or irritating.
3. Bias or Holding a Grudge
This is when the appraiser makes an employee suffer for past behaviour, irrespective of the positive output at work or when the appraiser judges the employee based on factors like state of origin, gender, religion, age, disability, weight, height, marital status, etc.
No fair rating can be gotten when subjective orientation is introduced. Line managers should ensure to focus on the employee’s work, not on personal matters, unless those personal matters affect the work of the employee. Check your perceptions for accuracy, fairness, balance, and consistency.
4. Recency
This occurs when an appraiser rates only recent performance, good or bad.
In order not to be focused on only the recent deliverables, line managers should keep track of performance and document observable behaviour over the entire performance cycle to get a balanced view. Ask others for their observations of the employee to see if they have different views.
5. The Sunflower Effect
This is when an appraiser rates employees high regardless of performance to make themselves look good or to be able to give more compensation.
The goal should not make any set of people feel good but improve and in turn give value, employees can justify ratings through tracked comments across set approval workflows for various levels.
6. Similarity Error
In many organisations, there are instances where employees share similarities with their managers. Some managers may even show a preference for these employees over those who exhibit different behaviors or ways of thinking.
It’s natural to feel more comfortable with individuals who resemble you, but you must be cautious as this inclination can impede the appraisal process. Maintain objectivity and incorporate diverse perspectives in the performance appraisal.
7. First Impression Error
This is the rater’s tendency to let their first impression of an employee’s performance carry too much weight in the evaluation of performance over an entire rating period.
Appraisals should support regular feedback, reports and trend analysis to help line managers and HR track employee’s rating over a period.
8. Compare and Contrast Error
This occurs when an evaluator compares the performance of two employees instead of assessing everyone’s performance based on absolute measurements. This approach can make an employee with a “good” rating appear mediocre when compared to someone rated as “excellent.”
Every employee possesses unique qualities, strengths, and weaknesses that make them distinct professionals. A fair appraisal cannot be achieved by attempting to compare one person’s abilities with another. Hence, managers should evaluate employees based on their individual performance against the standards and criteria that have been established for them.
9. Avoiding negative feedback
Many managers do not feel confident enough to have difficult conversations. But for growth to happen, there needs to be an honest discussion about the skill gaps your team members need to fill to be able to progress to the next stage of their career.
However, this doesn’t mean that negative feedback shouldn’t be handled with care. Prepare what you want to say in advance, rehearse it if needed or get some coaching to increase your confidence. Remember, good managers will set the bar high, but also provide the necessary support to reach objectives.
10. Concluding appraisals without feedback for improvement
This is when employees do not get comprehensive feedback after the appraisal exercise.
You can avoid this pitfall by using an automated appraisal system that allows for feedback. Always provide unbiased feedback about employees’ strengths and weaknesses, and even suggest helpful measures to boost outcomes.
Appraisal errors can cause your entire performance review programme to lose credibility among your employees. Consistent analysis of the process will help avoid this situation!
With HumanManager, you can enjoy a seamless and efficient performance management process that suits interactions within your organisation and among employees at all levels, as well as in the physical and virtual workspace.
HumanManager makes it a lot easier to achieve your organisational goals. Ready for a topnotch appraisal? Get started at https://humanmanager.net/features/performance-management .