MSG Team's other articles

11481 The War for Talent in the Global Economy

Having good talented people in your organization was important yesterday, today it is critical! Organizations world over have realized the importance of having talented people. McKinsey was the first to coin this term ‘war for talent’ in the year 1997. They named this for their research for talent management practices and beliefs. This became a […]

12016 Why Software Employees Face Significant Occupational Hazards and Addressing Them

Why Occupational Hazards are Not Limited to Manufacturing Firm Employees Alone Historically, manufacturing firms and those firms engaged in construction and jobs involving operation of heavy machinery and the like were thought to have significant Occupational Hazards or the dangers to employees on the job. Occupational Hazards, as the name implies, are the risks to […]

8727 Human Capital Management – Meaning and Important Concepts

To understand the meaning of Human Capital Management let us first find out the meaning of “Capital”. What does the word “Capital” stand for? Capital refers to already produced durable goods which further contribute to the production of goods and services. In simpler words, capital refers to any produced good/service which enables an individual/organization to […]

11921 Who are Boomerang Employees and what are the Pros and Cons of Having Them in Organizations?

What is meant by Boomerang Employees and Why They Have Become So Important Suddenly? Of late, much has been written and said about the so-called Boomerang Employees who are essentially employees who rejoin organizations that they have left earlier. In other words, Boomerang Employees, as the name implies, are staff members who “return” to the […]

9157 Employee Separation Process

Employee Separation is the process of ensuring that an employee who quits the company is exited in a structured and orderly manner. The process of employee separation is taken quite seriously by many firms and there is a dedicated department to handle employee exits from the company. In this article we discuss the process of […]

Search with tags

  • No tags available.

Managers commit mistakes while evaluating employees and their performance. Biases and judgment errors of various kinds may spoil the performance appraisal process. Bias here refers to inaccurate distortion of a measurement. These are:

  1. First Impression (primacy effect): Raters form an overall impression about the ratee on the basis of some particluar characteristics of the ratee identified by them. The identified qualities and features may not provide adequate base for appraisal.

  2. Halo Effect: The individual’s performance is completely appraised on the basis of a perceived positive quality, feature or trait. In other words this is the tendency to rate a man uniformly high or low in other traits if he is extra-ordinarily high or low in one particular trait. If a worker has few absences, his supervisor might give him a high rating in all other areas of work.

  3. Horn Effect: The individual’s performance is completely appraised on the basis of a negative quality or feature perceived. This results in an overall lower rating than may be warranted. “He is not formally dressed up in the office. He may be casual at work too!”.

  4. Excessive Stiffness or Lenience: Depending upon the raters own standards, values and physical and mental makeup at the time of appraisal, ratees may be rated very strictly or leniently.

    Some of the managers are likely to take the line of least resistance and rate people high, whereas others, by nature, believe in the tyranny of exact assessment, considering more particularly the drawbacks of the individual and thus making the assessment excessively severe. The leniency error can render a system ineffective. If everyone is to be rated high, the system has not done anything to differentiate among the employees.

  5. Central Tendency: Appraisers rate all employees as average performers. That is, it is an attitude to rate people as neither high nor low and follow the middle path. For example, a professor, with a view to play it safe, might give a class grade near the equal to B, regardless of the differences in individual performances.

  6. Personal Biases: The way a supervisor feels about each of the individuals working under him - whether he likes or dislikes them - as a tremendous effect on the rating of their performances. Personal Bias can stem from various sources as a result of information obtained from colleagues, considerations of faith and thinking, social and family background and so on.

  7. Spillover Effect: The present performance is evaluated much on the basis of past performance. “The person who was a good performer in distant past is assured to be okay at present also”.

  8. Recency Effect: Rating is influenced by the most recent behaviour ignoring the commonly demonstrated behaviours during the entire appraisal period.

Therefore while appraising performances, all the above biases should be avoidd.

Article Written by

MSG Team

An insightful writer passionate about sharing expertise, trends, and tips, dedicated to inspiring and informing readers through engaging and thoughtful content.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Communicating Performance Appraisals

MSG Team

360 Degree Feedback

MSG Team