Bias in Performance Evaluation - Case Study Example

?A. The points of concern with the current evaluation form of the company is that the current evaluation procedure is much too focused on an employee’s character and his conduct in and around the workplace. The engineer’s task performance function is given less importance and his ability to maintain and preserve relationships, keep his working environment clean and attitude towards co-workers is focused on to a higher degree. Secondly, the engineer’s qualifications exceed those of his evaluators so there is nobody rating the engineer who has the level of exposure similar to his own, thereby causing problems and leading them to focus on the relationship side of things when evaluating him. Lastly, the current evaluation form rates an employee on a scale that is not clearly defined. The use of ‘medium’ and ‘low-medium’ ratings can have different meanings and can form different perceptions on raters and cannot be quantified as well as some other rating scales might do. These ratings are also relative to the performance of others and thus might not accurate portray the performance of the employee and his commitment to the organization. A1. Some of the most commonly used sets of criteria used to evaluate the performance of an individual on the job are skill set, contribution towards the overall mission and goals of the company, and an employee’s work ethic. B. Evaluating based on overall contributions can be done based on criteria like sales figures, number of contracts negotiated and won and other task-related criteria. This set is perhaps most valuable because it sends a message to the employees that they shall be evaluated based on what they achieve for the company. Thus employees shall be more inclined to meet targets. In situations where an employee’s contributions can be quantified, this set of criteria can prove to be quite useful. When evaluating based on work ethic, an employee’s punctuality, friendliness, honesty, motivation and absenteeism are all taken into account. This set is valuable to an evaluator because in working environments that require low absenteeism and group harmony, the employee will be judged on how he fares across these dimensions. This set of criteria can of course be modified according to the needs of the organization and the individual. Lastly, examining an employee’s skill set is also an integral part of evaluations. It helps understand an employee’s strengths and weaknesses and provides a broader view of an employee’s performance. C. Advantages: There are many advantages of getting feedback from supervisor, subordinates and peers. A 360-degree evaluation provides a more rounded feedback to the employee. It helps the employee in understanding the areas he needs to improve upon in order to develop as one of the leaders in the organization. This type of feedback provides the employee with more detailed information which can be useful in developing the employee’s career. D. Disadvantages: Personal issues may affect the accuracy of evaluations as some subordinates, supervisors and peers may give biased or dishonest opinions. Secondly, supervisors may deliberately give lower ratings so as to protect their own jobs and avoid the risk of being surpassed by their subordinates. If a particular employee is a favorite of the supervisors, he/she may be rated higher than others and have their contributions recognized quicker than others. Lastly, each rater can have a different viewpoint of performance so consistency will be lacking across different raters’ evaluation E. Three data analysis tools for performance appraisal are paired evaluation, graphic rating scale and management by objective (MBO). The paired comparison style is used when a lot of relevant options are present. Each option is compared to the others in the list and given a score and the option with the highest score is selected at the end. The paired comparison style is useful in situations when there are plenty of options available and where priorities are not clear. However, it is not statistically powerful when the sample size is large and violates the assumption that transitivity will occur. The graphic rating scale is one of the most popular tools allowing raters to simply rate the performance of an employee on a variety of different job behaviors. A sample scale may range from having ‘Poor’ performance at one extreme and ‘Outstanding’ performance at the other extreme. While the graphic rating scale is considered to be a superior evaluating technique, it suffers from unreliability and leniency biases at times. It is “only appropriate for jobs where the behavior of the incumbent, rather than the results achieved, is what is important.” (Grote, 1996). The third style, MBO, sets a list of objectives to be achieved and then regularly makes assessments of performance and rewards based on the achieved results. It contrasts with the paired comparison style because here all employees may be evaluated by comparing their expected results to actual performance and it is quite possible that all employees may stand to gain whereas the paired comparison style only allows for the best option to be chosen. MBO is arguably the best form of evaluation as it provides transparency and is purely performance-oriented in nature. If an employee’s performance exceeds expectations, the result is there for all to see and there is very little chance of any bias or discrimination affecting the results. Above all, when employees themselves are involved in the goal-setting procedure, they are more likely to fulfill their targets. F. The first bias that can occur in performance evaluation is when a rater compares the performance of an employee to that of his past performance and lets the past influence him in the way he evaluates the employee’s current performance. Secondly, ratings of an employee who is an in-grouper may be different from those of an out-grouper in the sense that when an in-grouper performs badly on an assignment, his rater might credit it to bad luck whereas if the employee performs well, it may be credited to his intelligence. In contrast, for an out-grouper, good performance may be credited to good luck whereas poor performance will be called a result of his inability to follow instructions. According to (Geller, 2001), the third bias that can occur can be due to leniency errors that are very common and tend to occur when managers tend to rate every employee in a favorable light in order to avoid negative confrontations and conflict with those employees who receive lower ratings. G. In the given situation, the company can adopt procedures to balance the performance evaluation process so that all aspect of the employee’s performance can be evaluated instead of just his relationship building skills and neatness. The company can have an evaluation form designed that focuses equally on criteria such as quality, productivity and teamwork. Using such a method will help find a balance and the engineer will be well aware of where his strengths lie and give due credit to his achievements while also letting him gain awareness of areas where he can improve. Secondly, the company can have the performance evaluation conducted through external agencies instead of using internal 360-degree feedback. This way the performance evaluation will be free from any biases occurring through the feedback gained from the engineer’s colleagues and ensure transparency. Lastly, performance benchmarks can be set and performance measured against those benchmarks in order to compare an employee’s actual performance against expected performance. This way, even if the engineer’s supervisors are not more qualified than him, they will still be able to accurately evaluate his performance. The engineer himself can also be asked to evaluate his own performance to his expected performance. Bibliography Geller, E. S. (2001). Sources of Bias in Performance Appraisals. ISHN , p. 5. Grote, R. C. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal. Read More