NOW that the year is about to end, a lot of organizations have started their performance evaluations and workplan reviews. There are still companies that lack a tool for evaluating performance, and even when they do, they could have insufficient metrics to objectively evaluate their team’s performance. And then there are people managers who do not know how to effectively evaluate their team members because either they lack training, or even if they were trained well, they would still fall trap to performance evaluation biases.
One of the significant issues in evaluating employee performance is if one can objectively evaluate the performance of their team members. A manager sits down with their team at the start of the year to lay down their individual performance scorecard so that both can agree on what needs to be accomplished. And then throughout the year, there would be additional tasks or changes in the work plan, and the manager will end up reassigning tasks and moving people around so the team can do their part in the entire organization.
With all of these changes, a manager will have to evaluate their team based on each team member’s overall contribution to its success. During the evaluation, the manager will have to take into consideration factors that are not listed in their team’s scorecard. But as they evaluate their team, they need to be aware and, as much as possible, they need to avoid evaluation biases if they want to keep their team motivated and engaged.
One of the most common biases is recency where you evaluate your team members based on what they have done in the past weeks rather than the whole year. In a previous organization, I had a coworker once who did exceptionally well in the beginning of the year and she was able to accomplish several significant milestones. At the latter part of the year, she sent a poorly worded e-mail that could have possibly overturned an ongoing negotiation. The issue became a communication crisis and the head of human resource even stepped in to arbitrate. The crisis was eventually resolved but not without a negative effect on her evaluation.
What helped her in that situation was a tracker of her milestones for the year and how that single incident only affected a small percentage of her scorecard. She highlighted what she had done in the beginning of the year and what she had been consistently doing which were beyond what was expected of her. Similarly, you can also avoid recency bias by regularly checking in with your team and keeping a milestones tracker, so you know how much your team has been doing and compare their performance against everything that happened for the year.
Another fairly common bias is the primacy bias where you evaluate a person based on information that you have known first, otherwise known as “first impressions last.” An example is when a team member refuses to do something because he knows it is not his job, and then later in the day that same person gives you a candy bar. You will then think he is trying to win you over with a candy bar and conclude that he is being manipulative. However, when that same person first gives you a candy bar and later on refuses to do something that is not his job, you will tend to rationalize that he is not really obliged to do it or that he probably is just busy. To avoid this, it would help to have a milestone tracker to objectively understand what every team member has done.
Similar to the primacy bias is confirmation bias. This is prevalent not only in performance reviews but also in your daily interpretation of what is happening around you. We tend to look for people who agree with us and avoid those who have a different view. Take, for example, social media where we tend to like and share what we think are important, and look for more information that will support our beliefs. Similarly, when we review the performance of our team members, we tend to ask questions and highlight those that support what we believe about them, and filter out most information that do not support our assessment. To counter this bias, ask for feedback from the people they work with and take note of those that do not support your assessment. Even if they turn out to be insignificant, it will help to temper your evaluation to realistic levels.
There are also those who have a leniency bias. These are managers who do not want to hurt the feelings of their team members and constantly rate their team high even if they know that there are some things they need to improve. The problem with this is that a team member who is exerting effort and one who is just coasting will receive the same evaluation. This can be demotivating to the overachieving employee and promote mediocrity as the norm. To avoid this, ensure you have a scorecard that measures what each team member is supposed to do, and tally their scores objectively. This will help you reward those who deserve it and provide opportunities to improve for those who need it.
Then there is the similar-to-me bias which is the tendency to rate higher those who are most like us in terms of interests, abilities, experience, or even credentials. An example of this is a manager who rates someone high because they went to the same school. To avoid this, make sure that the team members understand the evaluation criteria and agree to be evaluated under those measures. This will lessen the bias and help you objectively evaluate their performance because everyone knows how they are being evaluated. If they compare, take the opportunity to discuss how to improve their rating evaluation and answer any questions.
As a people manager, your primary responsibility is to help each of your team members grow and maximize their potential. You cannot do that if you do not know where they are in their professional development and what they need to do to actualize their potential. You cannot tell them where they need to go if you do not know where to begin, because it all starts with a clear evaluation of where they are now before they can head in the right direction.