Mental Traps in Conducting Performance Evaluation

Mental traps, also known as cognitive biases, can significantly impact the fairness and accuracy of employee evaluations. These biases refer to automatic and unconscious patterns of thinking that can distort our perceptions and decision-making processes.

Image from The 5-Mental Traps Investors Are Falling Into Right Now

In conducting a performance evaluation, half of the time should review previous performance (diagnosis) and the remaining half should be looking forward (planning). Here are some common mental traps to be aware of in retrospecting employee performance.

1. Confirmation bias. This is the tendency to seek out and interpret information that confirms our existing beliefs and expectations. This can lead to overvaluing the strengths of employees we already like or undervaluing the strengths of employees we don’t like.
2. Anchoring bias / Primacy bias. This is the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we receive, even if it is not relevant or accurate. This can lead to an initial evaluation of an employee that is difficult to change, even if new information suggests otherwise.
3. Halo effect. This is the tendency to let one positive trait or piece of information about an employee influence our overall evaluation of that employee. This can lead to an overly positive evaluation of an employee who may have other areas for improvement. This is the tendency to make flagrant generalizations about a person’s job performance based on a particular aspect or characteristic of the person either positive or negative which colors our overall impression and skews our judgment.
4. Leniency bias. This is the tendency to be too lenient or forgiving when evaluating employees. This can lead to an overly positive evaluation that does not accurately reflect an employee’s strengths and areas for improvement.
5. Severity / Strictness bias. This is the opposite of leniency bias and refers to the tendency to be too strict or critical when evaluating employees. This can lead to an overly negative evaluation that does not accurately reflect an employee’s strengths and areas for improvement.
6. Contrast Effect. This is the tendency to evaluate a person relative to other individuals rather than on the job requirements. It is a tendency one may subconsciously lean towards and should guard against as an evaluator.
7. Recency. This is the tendency to allow more recent incidents, either effective or ineffective, of employee behavior to have too much bearing on the evaluation of performance.
8. Spillover. This is the tendency to assess an employee based on past performance, failing to take into account recent improvements (or failures).
9. Attribution bias. This is the tendency of the appraiser to assume that the employee has a negative attitude towards their work when an employee gives a negative answer to a question.
10. Central tendency. This is the tendency to assign “average” performance ratings to all employees.

It is important to be aware of these mental traps and to take steps to avoid them when conducting employee evaluations.

Unfortunately, we struggle to recognize our own biases. In fact, studies have shown that the more difficult to admit that you need support in this area, the more assistance you need.

This may include gathering multiple sources of information, seeking out diverse perspectives, and regularly reviewing and updating our evaluations to ensure that they are fair and accurate.

Here is my top advice to managers for delivering a performance review:

1. Allow yourself to be human. Recognize the limitations of your own understanding. Being conscious of your biases does not, by itself, make it possible for you to change them. This does not mean that we should ignore or indulge our biases. To make better decisions, we must instead implement systems, processes, procedures, and even technology. Get support and feedback from others and maintain an open mind above anything else.
2. Get involved and informed. Make sure your managers understand the tools and the need for thorough performance reviews and urge them to step back and honestly assess each ability, value, and objective in the context of the current work.
3. Switch Role. Managers should switch roles for a moment from resource allocator to coach and mentor.
4. Give enough time for 1 on 1. Schedule at least 30 to 50 minutes per person. A meeting might be longer than expected, especially if a performance review is seldom done. The back-to-back meeting is draining and might need more than a 5-minute break between them.
5. Get it documented. Documentation serves as evidence that the employee and management had a clear and periodic conversation about performance. The documentation provides a history of the employee’s positive and negative performance and its improvement over time.