Common Errors in Performance Appraisals
When managed and delivered effectively, performance appraisals are an excellent way to communicate with employees, set goals, review progress and motivate workers. However, a number of errors can get in the way of quality performance appraisals, and even cause negative effects on employee progress and morale. Here are some of the common mistakes in performance appraisals.
Inconsistency and uncertainty in the performance appraisal system mitigates their effectiveness. Employees should know when to expect performance reviews, and the manager should plan ahead and set an appraisal meeting on time. Scheduling and preparing for appraisal meetings helps your employees take them more seriously. Finding a quiet space to conduct the meeting and allowing the employee to share feedback or input is helpful as well.
Some managers offer feedback that is too strict or too lenient. Being too strict means that you downgrade employees relative to actual performance. Leniency means delivering scores higher than job performance warrants. Keeping emotions out of your evaluation and using objective criteria with data to support your reasoning helps ensure the most accurate results. Accurate ratings improve the ability of your workers to respond in areas where improvement is needed.
The halo effect means that you assume because an employee is generally "good", that his work in all areas is strong. The halo effect prevents a manager from objectively evaluating the employee on each criterion. Maintaining a professional approach to relationships, treating each worker equally and carefully scoring each criterion helps protect against haloing.
"Like me" bias and stereotyping are closely related errors in employee appraisal. These errors in performance appraisal stem from a manager's use of personal perspectives to conduct evaluations. Liking a particular employee may bias the manager toward more favorable assessments. Stereotyping employees leads to preconceived expectations and judgments, which hinder accuracy. Stereotyping also may lead to discrimination.
As with strictness and leniency, the key to protect against these errors in employee appraisal is objective and carefully scrutinized appraisals. Data-driven assessments also guard against high levels of subjectivity.
The recency effect is based on a natural inclination to give greater weight to the most recent events. Therefore, an employee who has performed much lower than normal in recent weeks may receive an overly condemning evaluation. Some employees recognize the recency effect and work hard leading up to a performance appraisal to make a positive last impression. Keeping notes between employee evaluations and tracking performance data for an extended period of time enables a more thorough employee performance evaluation.