Objective Method To Reduce Bias In Appraisals

Dear Colleagues,
I am in the process conducting the 360 deg appraisal in my organisation but have encountered with a problem of :
1. Addressing the creeping in of a bias by the appraisor.
2. People have the tendency to rate a person higer than what he actually is or vice versa.
3. Within the organisation when two group leaders with the above tendency appraise, a non performer from one group may get the rating as a good performer from the other group.
4. There would be some method of putiing some correction factor to address this creep to standardise the findings.
May I request you suggest ways / books that may give a solution to the query raised.
Thanks
Jaya Kumar.
Member Cite Hr

Dear Jaya Kumar,

In my opinion you have touched a topic that’s like the Achilles heel of ‘people development’. The traditional concept of Performance appraisal is so ingrained in us (HR professionals) that it’s almost impossible to perceive that the methodology can be faulty and needs to be looked at under a different light. Most of us keep turning the wheel knowing very well that something is wrong; somehow the Appraisal system doesn’t work.

Let me try to put forward my thoughts in a few points below:

Employee Development: Appraisals are commonly used to address an entire range of issues, discussing ‘developmental area’ being one. So when a supervisor rates an employee ‘1’ out of 5 (being lowest) in a particular area, it doesn’t mean much… except that the supervisor is not happy in that area. The problem is, Appraisals are an annual / bi annual affair and because of its ritualistic approach, each employee gets about 30 min. This time is not enough! To address an employee developmental areas, one needs to provide ongoing specific feedbacks by citing instances of when they were undependable, and what is the expected change in behavior and desired result. And such activities need time. Simply putting a low score once a year and telling an employee his/her area of improvement will only bring ‘indifference’ to the appraisal system.

Illusion of Objectivity: Most organizations have philosophical / procedural / legal pressure to evaluate employees in an objective and fair manner. Being objective is most critical because we want to eradicate “bias”. This has made us develop number based systems to evaluate employees
Mostly we try to evaluate the following: (in addition to other components)

• Knowledge / Skill / Attitude: Evaluate the use of information, procedures...etc required for current jobs; the right attitude.
• Quality: accuracy, completeness, etc of work.
• Planning/Organization: Consider areas such as varying work demands, developing efficient measures
• Initiative: Consider the self-starting ability, resourcefulness, and creativity applied to the duties of the position

Unfortunately, most of the above do not eliminate subjectivity… One manager’s idea of “Self Starter” is very different from another.

One option to counter the subjectivity is to measure the “end result” of one’s work against a particular standard; ex.: Sales people being appraised based on their sales result. Then a Ranking system can be applied to differentiate the Hi-Pers from the others or an A B C categorization system put in place. However one still faces a problem while evaluating 2 people from different functional areas, how does one “objectively” evaluate a sales associate’s performance versus customer service associate’s? However the ranking system is by far better then the Rating System.

Difference between Ranking & Rating: A ranking system evaluates employees based on whether they are better, equal or worse than their peers. It is a comparison. A rating system compares employee performance to some set of criterion, and produces either a number or a letter grade that supposedly represents the employee's level of performance. With a RANKING system it isn't really possible for everyone to be ranked as excellent (or at the top of the heap), even if all employees are excellent. A rating system permits everyone to be rated highly, if they warrant it. Interestingly 360 Appraisals (rankings from multiple sources) are worse than regular manager-employee rating systems. They create more subjective data, with rankings from one source contradicting ratings from another and can be hugely expensive.

So what do we Do…? Let’s understand the underlying philosophy behind Performance appraisal… The most important purpose of PA is to improve future performance… and not just for the employee. Managers can get valuable information from employees to help them make employee's jobs more productive. Work units and organizations can identify problems that interfere with everyone's work. Managers must put away the "blaming stick" in appraisals and move to a cooperative, dialogue approach, the whole process can become more comfortable and effective. Because, it puts the manager and employee on the same side, and working towards the same goals, If we shift from affixing blame, to identifying barriers to performance we begin to remove the fear and dread people have about these "appraisals". When we focus on the present and the future, we change our focus to what's been to what can be better tomorrow.

An appraisal that works involves a number of things, but first and foremost is the process of identifying what has gotten in the way of better performance (regardless of the level of performance), and how manager and employee can work together in the future, to improve it. It's really that simple. What’s not simple is our Mindset to change…

Hello Jaya.

If you really mean that you are using 360 degree appraisals, from what you say I sense that you are misusing the 360 degree appraisal system. 360 degree appraisals are designed to mitigate the bias inherent in traditional supervisor/appraisee appraisals. They do this by taking a broader sweep of feedback inputs; from peers, customers, direct reports, etc. They improve objectivity by smoothing out the more biased or extreme inputs and by getting feedback from the other kinds of people that the employee interacts with.

So, the strength of the system is not in that each and every respondent to the survey is thoroughly objective, but that (a) a wider, more representative set of inputs are taken into account, and (b) where behaviors are being evaluated, impressions are equally important compared with facts.

Secondly, where the results of 360 degree feedback are used to apportion rewards such as bonuses and salary increases, collusion between employees and managers can occur. So, many organizations use 360 degree feedback for developmental purposes only. It’s the facilitated discussion about the results and the plan for improvement that brings the greatest benefits, not the number at the bottom of the page.

I will illustrate further what I mean by addressing each of your questions directly.

1. Addressing the creeping in of a bias by the appraiser.

How do you know that the appraisal of a particular appraiser is biased? Many implementations of 360 degree feedback leave the appraiser’s identify as anonymous. This is so that each appraiser can evaluate without fear or favor. Where the appraiser’s identity is open, this is where there is an environment of high trust. If you are judging the validity of appraiser’s responses, this will quickly reduce any trust that you did have.

2. People have the tendency to rate a person higher than what he actually is or vice versa.

Same comment as above. If you know what the “real” or “objective” rating should be, why are you wasting resources and people’s time when you already “know” the answer? This makes me think that you have not fully appreciated the philosophy behind 360 degree feedback.

3. Within the organization when two group leaders with the above tendency appraise, a non performer from one group may get the rating as a good performer from the other group.

That’s precisely why 360 degree appraisals take a broader range of feedback inputs. You can mitigate this problem by having behaviorally based anchors for each of the scores on the scoring form. That means that for each score on the sheet, you describe in terms of observable behavior what an appraisee must display to receive that score.

4. There would be some method of putting some correction factor to address this creep to standardize the findings.

By drawing on multiple feedback inputs, the 360 degree appraisal system is designed to be self-correcting. The value of the system is not in the score of this or that appraisee, but on the spread of scores. During the debrief session with the employee, the debriefer looks at the spread of scores. So, the objective of the system is not to “standardize” the scores. Quite the opposite; it’s to get multiple perspectives.


As a concluding remark, many performance management systems that use 360 degree feedback complement this with goal setting and regular review of progress towards goals. Progress towards and achievement of goals needs to be objectively verifiable. The setting and review of measurable goals is a skill in itself. This kind of two component performance management system then satisfies the goals of (a) objective measurement of employee progress towards delivering results, and (b) evaluation and developmental feedback on behaviors. I hope all of this makes sense.

Les Allan
Author: From Training to Enhanced Workplace Performance
www.businessperform.com

Dear Allan and Navarun,
Thanks for your updates. It was indeed so nice of you to have penned your comments for my query.
Thanks. once again
Jaya Kumar