How to Conduct a Fair Evaluation
The Performance Management Process (PMP) is specifically designed to
overcome common rating errors and give the supervisor an opportunity to
evaluate performance in an objective manner. The performance review is based
on measurable job-related behaviors, not an individual’s personal traits.
Common Rating Errors
Performance review research has shown that supervisors commonly make a
number of rating errors when evaluating an employee’s performance. Common
rating errors include:
Halo or Horn Error The supervisor allows the employee’s performance on one
aspect of the job to influence an overall evaluation or an evaluation of other
aspects of the job. This can be based on a positive aspect of performance (the
halo effect) or a negative aspect of performance (the horn effect).
“She always comes to work on time. Obviously, she should get an
“Exceeds Expectations” rating on Quality of Work.”
“Of course I gave him a “Below Expectations” rating on Job Knowledge.
How could anyone who dresses like that for work know anything about
how to do the job?”
Restriction of Range Error The supervisor fails to use the entire range of
scores on the evaluation scale. There are three types of restrictions that the
supervisor may incorrectly use.
Leniency – The supervisor always gives an “Outstanding” rating
regardless of performance. The supervisor may do this because he or
she does not what to confront any possible performance problems, wants
to “motivate” the employee through high praise, or maintain the present
working relationship without disruption.
Severity – The supervisor commonly rates employees as “Below
Expectations” because of unrealistic standards or selective perception.
Central Tendency – The supervisor gives all employees an average rating,
“Meets Expectations,” for fear of singling out an outstanding or poor
performer.
“I don’t dare give anyone a rating lower than an “Outstanding.”
They expect it and will file a grievance if it’s anything less.”
“No one in this department will get more than a “Meets
Expectations” rating. I want them to shoot for something more.”
2/12/2016
1
Contrast Error The supervisor will compare employees to one another rather
than to a fixed standard, the performance expectations for the job.
“No, I can’t really say that she deserves the “Exceeds Expectations” rating
I gave her, but compared to others in this unit, she sure stood out.”
Frame of Reference Error The supervisor will compare an employee’s
performance to the rater’s own personal standards for that job, rather than those
on the performance review form.
“I can’t help it if you would give Smith an “Exceeds Expectations” rating if
he were in your unit. “Exceeds Expectations” to me is ‘walk on water’
behavior, no matter what the standard is.”
First Impression Error The supervisor will have an initial favorable or
unfavorable judgment about an employee and then ignore or subconsciously
distort subsequent information so as to support the initial impression.
“Johnson may appear to be performing well to you now, but you’ll see. I
knew he was worthless after that horrible first week on the job, and
nothing has changed my mind.”
Recency Error The supervisor will evaluate performance based on very recent
or current incidents rather than those occurring throughout the year.
“I gave you a “Below Expectations” on Quantity of work because last
month you got behind on those notification letters. Usually you’re up to
date on those, but you really slipped up then.”
2/12/2016
2