Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Paper Formatting
Double or single-spaced
1-inch margin
12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
300 words per page
No Lateness!
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Our Guarantees
Free Unlimited revisions
Guaranteed Privacy
Money Return guarantee
Plagiarism Free Writing
Difference in Performance Review
Imagine that you have an employee that rates themself very highly on their self-appraisal, but you know that their actual performance is very poor, and a have evaluated them accordingly in your managerial evaluation. How do you either bridge the gap or communicate the bad news?
Distortion in Performance AppraisalsDistortion in Performance Appraisals Explain why performance appraisals may be distorted. Read the following article: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/281919Links to an external site.
In your opinion, which of the stated unconscious biases in the article is the worst? Why?
"It's a dog eat dog world out there" according to Jackson, president of Onleo as he defended their use of relative standards to evaluate employees. "If Onleo falls below 10% market share, we're finished. Why shouldn't our employees who are in the bottom 10% lose their jobs?" Evaluate Jackson's point of view and explain the advantages and disadvantages of using relative standards and firing the lowest ranked performers. How do you feel about the practice?
Sample Answer
Bridging the Performance Gap: Self vs. Manager Appraisal
The most effective way to handle the disparity between an employee's high self-appraisal and a manager's low performance evaluation is to shift the conversation from subjective feelings to objective, measurable facts and focus on development.
Step
Action
Rationale
1. Acknowledge and Validate
Begin by acknowledging the employee's positive self-perception and effort. E.g., "I appreciate your drive and the ambition reflected in your self-appraisal."
This disarms defensiveness and validates their subjective experience, building rapport before delivering bad news.
2. Present Objective Data
Pivot immediately to specific, verifiable, and objective evidence from your managerial evaluation. Use metrics, project completion rates, client feedback, or missed deadlines.
The conversation should be about behavior and impact, not personality or subjective opinion. For instance: "Your appraisal stated 'Excellent' in Sales, but the quarterly report shows you closed 5 deals, which is 50% below our required threshold of 10."
3. Focus on Impact
Clearly articulate the negative consequences of their performance on the team, department, or company goals.
This helps the employee understand the severity of the issue beyond their personal view. It makes the poor rating a consequence of a business problem, not a personal judgment.
4. Co-create a Development Plan
End the conversation by focusing on the future. Use the performance gap to define SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) and a clear, time-bound Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
Frame the conversation as coaching. The message is: "This is where you are now, and this is the documented, measurable path to get you where you need to be." Schedule frequent, short follow-ups to monitor progress.
2. Distortion in Performance Appraisals
Performance appraisals are prone to distortion because they are human-driven processes often influenced by unconscious cognitive shortcuts and systemic design flaws.
Why Appraisals May Be Distorted
The article highlights that approximately 61% of a performance rating is based on the rater's judgment (the Idiosyncratic Rater Effect) rather than the ratee's actual performance. The key unconscious biases that contribute to this distortion include:
Central Tendency Bias: Raters avoid using the extreme ends of the scale, lumping most employees in the middle to avoid confrontation or damaging confidence.
Recency and Spillover Bias:
Recency: Focusing only on the employee's most recent performance, forgetting work done earlier in the appraisal period.
Spillover: Continuing to rate an employee based on their past performance, ignoring recent improvements or declines.
Negativity Bias: Giving disproportionate weight to negative feedback or events, causing employees to focus on fear and anger rather than constructive learning.
Halo Effect, Confirmatory, and Similarity Bias:
Halo Effect: An overly positive view of an employee in one area (e.g., great communication skills) spills over into a consistently high rating in all other areas.
Confirmatory Bias: Interpreting or recalling performance evidence in a way that confirms a manager's pre-existing positive or negative belief about an employee.
Similarity Bias: Favoring and trusting employees who share traits or interests with the manager ("affinity bias").