Best Practice: Bias-Free Performance Reviews
People, by their very nature, are prone to making unfair judgments about others. Even the most open-minded, objective thinkers are influenced by cognitive biases they’re not aware of.
A cognitive bias causes flaws in thinking that lead to inaccurate decisions and perceptions. They happen because the human mind processes information so quickly that it’s often the wrong information that is considered. We like to think we fairly evaluate every situation we encounter but our decision-making is influenced by our personal beliefs, life experiences, and emotions— whether we know it or not.
Biases are common in the workplace, especially when managers are asked to evaluate the performance of their team members. There is so much to consider when completing performance reviews and raters can easily get caught up in incorrect or irrelevant details.
Rater bias is harmful in more ways than one. First and foremost, employees don’t get the recognition they deserve and accurate feedback that can help them improve. But even more, they’ll become dissatisfied with their job, lose motivation, and may consider new opportunities where their hard work is acknowledged.
In this article, you’ll learn the different rater biases that occur and how to prevent them with a modern performance management process.
Common biases in performance reviews
There are different rater biases that prevent accurate performance reviews. And not all of them lead to negative evaluations. Sometimes employees are viewed in a positive light for the wrong reasons. Let’s start by reviewing the common biases that occur so you know what to be on the lookout for.
Strictness Bias
The Strictness Bias causes managers to be overly critical and give low scores on most competencies. Employees become disengaged and consider exiting the organization when they don’t receive recognition for what they’re doing well.
Leniency Bias
The opposite of the Strictness Bias, the Leniency Bias leads to managers giving predominantly high scores. Employees will be happy to receive a glowing review but won’t get constructive feedback that helps them improve.
Central Tendency Bias
The Central Tendency Bias happens when raters don’t want to score anyone too high or low so they veer toward the middle (e.g. mostly threes on a five-point scale). It ultimately makes an employee’s review meaningless since they don’t get any insight into their performance one way or another.
Contrast Effect
The Contrast Effect results in raters comparing different employees. For example, one employee might be rated lower than a top performer on every competency instead of receiving fair acknowledgment for the things they do well.
Halo/Horns Effect
Raters who get caught up in details that don’t matter are falling victim to the Halo/Horns Effect. The Halo Effect causes raters to evaluate employees entirely on a positive trait, like an outgoing personality. The Horns Effect results in poor evaluations based specifically on a negative perception, like an unkempt appearance.
First Impression Bias
An extension of the Halo/Horns Effect, the First Impression Bias leads to a rater forever judging someone based on the first interaction with them. If an employee nailed their job interview, they could always be thought of as a top performer, even if that is not the case.
Alternatively, maybe the rater preferred another candidate over the person who was hired and is never willing to give the new team member a chance.
Similar-to-Me Effect
The Similar-to-Me Effect is a common bias that results in managers giving preferential treatment to people they can relate to. When it comes to performance reviews, they might give positive scores to employees who are the same gender, age group, race, etc. It not only leads to inaccurate evaluations but also stifles the inclusive culture today’s employers are striving for.
Recency Bias
Recency Bias causes managers to only consider the employee’s latest successes or failures in their evaluation. It often occurs in a poorly-constructed performance review process where raters don’t have any information to inform their scores.
Spillover Bias
The opposite of Recency Bias, the Spillover Bias occurs when managers account for an employee's performance from earlier review periods. Perhaps, an employee successfully improved in an area where they were previously struggling but their manager still gives them low marks on that competency.
False Attribution Bias
The False Attribution Bias occurs when a team member is blamed or credited for something they weren’t fully responsible for. Employees sometimes fall short of expectations because they didn’t have proper support or resources. Other times, someone might benefit from a colleague’s hard work.
How to prevent rater bias
Unfortunately, you can’t prevent people from having these biases. Like we mentioned in the intro, they’re simply human nature.
However, you can create an effective performance management process that keeps biases out of evaluations. These tips will lead to employees receiving fair and accurate reviews that focus only on their job performance.
Set employee goals
The first step is to define exactly what successful job performance looks like for every employee. Instead of relying on generic evaluation competencies like “initiative” and “teamwork,” set goals for every employee that have clear intended outcomes.
Download our guide “Setting SMART Goals for Employees”
The SMART-method results in objective goals that help employees understand exactly what to focus on. Go through each letter in the acronym (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timely) and set goals to use as the basis for each employees’ performance review.
Create effective review forms and rating scales
While SMART goals account for most of an employee’s performance review, you should round out evaluation forms with the right behavioral and leadership competencies. However, don’t use the same supplemental competencies for every employee. Instead, consider what criteria are relevant to their role.
Download our glossary of “50 Performance Evaluation Competencies”
Additionally, use a “semi-quantitative” rating scale instead of a purely-numerical 1-to-5 scale. A semi-quantitative scale has five scoring options, only each is titled for context (e.g. “not effective,” “minimally effective,” “effective,” “highly effective,” “exceptional”). You can also include descriptions with each competency so raters know what to consider when scoring an employee on subjective criteria.
Use performance notes
Performance review periods are lengthy and raters can’t be expected to remember everything an employee accomplished or struggled with. Using a performance management system like Trakstar Perform, managers can document an employee’s highs and lows throughout the review period.
Notes can reflect any progress or setbacks related to an employee’s goals. Managers can also record notes relevant to the secondary competencies the employee is evaluated on. When it comes time to complete reviews, they’ll have a detailed record to consult, helping them avoid recency, spillover, and false-attribution bias.
Collect 360-degree feedback
Biases are most prevalent when only one person reviews an employee. By collecting feedback from multiple raters, a clear picture will form around what an employee is doing well and what they can improve on.
Download our “A Guide to 360-Degree Feedback”
Using 360-degree feedback, employees are reviewed by their immediate team members, colleagues from other departments, direct reports, senior leaders, and even people outside the organization. The manager still completes the final evaluation but has different perspectives to consider that help them overcome any personal biases.
Accept self-reviews
Instead of expecting employees to listen as they’re told how they’re performing, allow them to give their input. Ask them to complete a self-review where they review themselves on the same competencies other raters do. Then have them meet with their manager to discuss the results.
Self-reviews help counter any biases the manager may have. The employee shares their first-person perspective on why they approach their job the way they do.
Conduct regular employee check-ins
Performance shouldn’t only be discussed once a year or quarter. Employees should meet with their manager regularly to share what they’re working on and how they’re generally feeling about their job. The manager can then respond with feedback that helps the employee resolve the challenges they’re facing.
Download our “Employee Check-In Template”
Continuous performance-related conversations prevent managers from making any snap judgments when completing formal reviews. They’ll already be aware of where the employee has been striving to improve and the problems that have hindered progress.
Optimize performance management with data
Even if you follow all these tips, there will still be raters who give inaccurate performance reviews. With Trakstar Perform, you can identify rater biases in an easy-to-understand report.
The Rater Bias Report shows the range of scores raters gave to employees or teams. You can pinpoint who is either too lenient or strict in their evaluations and provide coaching that helps them fairly evaluate employee performance going forward.