Dear Colleagues! This is Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #973 for Pharma Veterans. Pharma Veterans Blogs are published by Asrar Qureshi on its dedicated site https://pharmaveterans.com. Please email to aq.pharmaveterans@gmail.com for publishing your contributions here.
360-degree appraisal is a way to get feedback on performance of an employee from different perspectives. In this system, bosses, co-workers, and subordinates rate the performance of an individual who is usually from mid-level to senior level of management. At these levels, there are enough related employees to provide sufficient data for a detailed assessment. 360-degree feedback may be helpful for creating a long-term roadmap for the employee’s future performance, including training and development. Fewer companies in Pakistan do 360-degree appraisals at certain managerial levels.
360-degree appraisals, while offering a comprehensive view of an employee’s performance, are still susceptible to various biases. Here are some of common biases.
Common Biases
Halo effect – A positive or negative experience with an employee in one area can influence the rater’s overall perception, spilling over into unrelated areas. For example, a marketing person may have very good working relationship with a supply chain counterpart. The supply chain appraiser rates him highly in appraisal without knowing what he does in other areas.
Leniency/Severity bias – Some raters tend to be overly critical or lenient in their evaluations. This can distort the true picture of an employee’s performance. Though performance appraisals started in Pakistan many years ago, our people have not been able to learn to do appraisals objectively. Some people believe that appraisal must be done leniently so that the employee may not be at a disadvantage with other employees who were rated leniently by their bosses. On the contrary, some other appraisers consider appraisal as a sort of ‘jihad – crusade’ in which they are the righteous ones. They do appraisals in a very strict manner, not even giving due credit.
Recency bias – Recent events, positive or negative, can hold more weight in the rater’s mind, overlooking the employee’s performance throughout the entire review period. The same thing happens in the one-on-one appraisals where the manager and the subordinate try to project on more recent events rather than covering the entire appraisal period. This may distort the real picture.
Similarity bias – Raters might be more favorable towards colleagues who share similar personalities or working styles. Employees at every level interact with counterparts frequently and get to understand more closely. It is common observation that people with similar views would be more prone to endorsing each other. In Pakistan, we have several other reasons also to support or reject colleagues beside professional factors. These may include certain families, political orientation, social orientation, sectarian orientation, and so on. It is not about clouded judgment; it is about deliberate support or the opposite.
Friendship/Relationship bias – Close personal relationships or conflicts with the employee can influence the feedback provided. As mentioned above also, during longer-term working, relationships evolve on either side and of both types. There may be friendships with some and there may be conflicts with some. People may try to settle scores through 360-degree feedback if they are against someone, and they may give extraordinarily positive feedback for someone they like. These connections are visible in meetings also but can be more damaging in feedback.
Confirmation bias – Raters might unconsciously seek out or interpret information that confirms their existing beliefs about the employee. Not everyone knows others so well that they could give substantive feedback, so they may go by certain impressions they had formed during interactions. It is a dangerous trend because impressions formed through chance interactions and hearsay are mostly wrong.
Sum Up
These are some of the biases which play while people do a 360-degree appraisal. There may be more isolated factors which can influence feedback. The sum up is that 360-degree feedback is not as impartial, neutral, and clean as it is expected to be. In a society like ours where honesty is a rare commodity, objective and impartial feedback is hard to come by.
Let us now look at some strategy to mitigate/ minimize the biases.
Strategies to Mitigate Bias
- Use clear evaluation criteria and rating scales to ensure consistency across all reviewers. A three or five-point rating scale is not favored because it has a median point which is used most often as a safe evaluation. Rating scale and description should be designed with objectivity in mind.
- Guarantee anonymity for raters whenever possible to encourage honest and unbiased feedback. In larger organizations, it may be more possible but in smaller organizations where everyone knows everyone closely, it is impossible to achieve.
- Maintain secrecy to the best possible extent. HR departments here are not very reliable in keeping the information safe. The information thus leaked out may not even be correct, but once leaked, it may damage relations and impact.
- Train raters to recognize and manage unconscious bias, emphasizing the importance of objectivity. Training on objective feedback is a recurring need, in fact, a refresher may be needed at the beginning of every appraisal cycle to remind everyone what is needed and what must be avoided.
- Encourage raters to focus on specific behaviors and provide concrete examples to support their feedback. I have seen that objective feedback in any situation is our weakest area as a community. During reference checks, when we ask the HR of a company about their ex-employee, they would generally say he/she was a good employee. When pressed about more specific job-related aspects, the response would either be trash or zero. Asking rates to be specific is extremely important.
- Frame the appraisal as a tool for development, not just evaluation. Focus on actionable feedback that helps the employee improve. This is another important tool to mitigate biases. It should be emphasized that the purpose of appraisal is neither fault-finding nor commendation, rather, it is aimed at developing people. The feedback should be oriented towards this objective.
Closing Statement
I was introduced to performance appraisal system during late 1970s while I was in the beginning of my career. I was an appraisee for couple of years and then became an appraiser and an appraisee. Much has happened since then, but even with many new ideas and systems, the biases in appraisals have not been eliminated. We are all human beings, and we shall never be bias-free. The focus, instead, should be on mitigating and mitigating biases. By implementing above suggestions, organizations can create a more trustworthy and unbiased 360-degree appraisal system. This ensures employees receive valuable feedback that reflects their actual performance and contributes to their growth.
Concluded.
Disclaimers: Pictures in these blogs are taken from free resources at Pexels, Pixabay, Unsplash, and Google. Credit is given where available. If a copyright claim is lodged, we shall remove the picture with appropriate regrets.
For most blogs, I research from several sources which are open to public. Their links are mentioned under references. There is no intention to infringe upon anyone’s copyrights. If, however, it happens unintentionally, I offer my sincere regrets.
Reference:
