Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Common Biases / Pitfalls

    Uploaded by

    api-3705268
    19 views8 pages
    This document discusses common biases that can affect performance evaluations, including the halo effect, central tendency bias, and same-as-me bias. It describes the "Matthew effect", where high-performing employees tend to continue receiving good evaluations while low performers face increasing disadvantages. A study found supervisors divide subordinates into favored "in-groups" and disfavored "out-groups". Out-group employees are likely to be unfairly blamed for failures and feel frustrated by biased evaluations. To counter biases, the document recommends awareness training, developing poor performers, and counseling or replacing chronic underperformers.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    121

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document discusses common biases that can affect performance evaluations, including the halo effect, central tendency bias, and same-as-me bias. It describes the "Matthew effect", where high-performing employees tend to continue receiving good evaluations while low performers face increasing disadvantages. A study found supervisors divide subordinates into favored "in-groups" and disfavored "out-groups". Out-group employees are likely to be unfairly blamed for failures and feel frustrated by biased evaluations. To counter biases, the document recommends awareness training, developing poor performers, and counseling or replacing chronic underperformers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    19 views8 pages

    Common Biases / Pitfalls

    Uploaded by

    api-3705268
    This document discusses common biases that can affect performance evaluations, including the halo effect, central tendency bias, and same-as-me bias. It describes the "Matthew effect", where high-performing employees tend to continue receiving good evaluations while low performers face increasing disadvantages. A study found supervisors divide subordinates into favored "in-groups" and disfavored "out-groups". Out-group employees are likely to be unfairly blamed for failures and feel frustrated by biased evaluations. To counter biases, the document recommends awareness training, developing poor performers, and counseling or replacing chronic underperformers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    Common Biases / Pitfalls

    • Initial impression
    • Central tendency
    • Strict rating
    • Lenient rating
    • Halo effect
    • Horn effect
    • Latest Behavior
    • Spillover effect
    • Status effect / “Snob” effect
    • Same as me
    • Different from me
    • Attribution errors
    • Actor-observer bias
    • Personal biases
    Bias Effects
    • Matthew effect (Gabris & Mitchell)
    – after the Matthew of biblical fame who wrote,

    "To him who has shall be given, and he shall


    have abundance: but from him who does not
    have, even that which he has shall be taken
    away.“

    – employees tend to keep receiving the same


    appraisal results, year in and year out.
    Bias Effects
    • Support to Matthew Effect
    – A study of supervisors in nearly 40
    organizations

    – Subordinates tend to be divided into 2 groups

    • In-groupers
    • Out-groupers
    In-groupers
    • Favored by their supervisors

    • Enjoy a “high degree of trust, interaction,


    support and rewards”

    • Supervisors tend to overlook their failures


    or attribute to causes such as bad timing
    or bad luck
    Out-groupers
    • Permanently out of favor and are likely to
    bear the brunt supervisory distrust ad
    criticism

    • When they do poorly, it is attributed to


    laziness and incompetence
    Frustration
    • Certain employees may be unfairly advantaged,
    while others are disadvantaged, by bias effects
    in the judgment of supervisors.

    • Because of this, it makes them feel more


    frustrated about their performance and their
    supervisors

    • Employees have become more pessimistic


    because of the biases
    Defense Against Biases
    • Awareness Training

    • Developing Poor Performers

    – Incentives (financial & non-financial)


    – Supervisory appraisals

    • Counseling, Transfer, or Termination


    – For chronic poor performers

    You might also like