Error: No such template "/hrDesign/network_profileHeader"!
Topic: Rater Errors
Messages (4) Visitors (636)
Matt Beegle
|
Rater Errors
11-03-2006 / 1:59 pm #1
|
What are the Rater Errors when it comes to doing a performance appraisal?
|
|
|
Sandhya Syama
|
Re: Rater Errors
11-20-2006 / 9:32 am #2
|
EVALUATOR ERRORS
Varying standards: Evaluations not being consistent
Recency/Primacy: Focuing on recent/ first behaviour
Central Tendency: Same rating for every one
Leniency: Shun low rating to avoid conflict
Constancy: Rate employee in rank order of previous review
Similarity: Rate employees higher who have similar values and interest to the reviewer
Bias: Based on race, color religion, sex, national origin, disability age, veteran status, sexual orientation, political belief.
Evaluation patterns: The tendency of an evaluator to rate most people the same, always too lenient, always too strict, etc.
Halo/Horns effect: The biased view that everything a person does is good or is always bad.
Contrast error – A person is rated an excellent performer only because he/she is in a poor group or visa versa
|
|
|
Aaron Dave
|
Re: Re: Rater Errors
07-17-2007 / 11:49 am #3
|
There are different types of errors that raters commit:
1. Recency Error - Performance-rating error in which the appraisal is based largely on the employee’s most recent behavior rather than on behavior throughout the appraisal period
2. Contrast Error - Performance-rating error in which an employee’s evaluation is biased
either upward or downward because of comparison with another employee just previously evaluated
3. Similar-to-me error - Performance-rating error in which an appraiser inflates the evaluation of an employee because of a
mutual personal connection
4. Leniency or Strictness Error - Performance-rating error in which the appraiser tends to give employees either unusually high or unusually low ratings
5. Error of Central Tendency - Performance‑rating error in which
all employees are rated about average
6. Halo Effect - A halo effect takes place when one aspect of an individual’s performance influences the evaluation of the entire performance of the individual.
7. Rater Effect - Excessively high or low scores are given only to certain individuals or groups based on the rater’s attitude towards the raitee, not on actual outcomes or behaviors.
8. Perceptual Set - This occurs when the rater’s assessment is influenced by previously held beliefs.
9. Spill Over Effect - This refers to allowing past performance appraisal ratings to unjustifiably influence current ratings.
10. Status Effect - It refers to overrating of employees in higher-level job or jobs held in high esteem, and underrating employees in lower-level job or jobs held in low esteem.
|
|
|
Debora M
|
Re: Rater Errors
05-01-2020 / 3:54 am #4
|
One of the most common rating errors is known as the halo effect. Halo effect occurs when one particular trait about someone causes us to either rate that person very high or very low on performance appraisals. For example, physical appearance often impacts the perception a manager may have of a subordinate. Therefore, because an employee is physically attractive, this individual may receive all high scores throughout the performance appraisal system. Why is this a problem? When a rater gives ratings to an employee because of a trait or characteristic, the rating is not accurate. Just because someone is physically attractive does not mean they deserve high scores across the board. Unfortunately, the halo effect is typically an unconscious judgment. As a manager, I may not even know that I am rating employees differently based on personality or physical appearance. However, if I receive the right training, I am more likely to think about the scores I am giving employees.
A second common error is known as the leniency error. This error is often made in an attempt to avoid conflict. Performance appraisals are an uncomfortable situation for both managers and employees. Managers do not always enjoy giving negative feedback and employees do not like receiving negative feedback. To avoid the awkward situation, some managers will not rate employees accurately. Instead, managers give high ratings to all employees to avoid looking like the bad guy. Although performance appraisal meetings induce anxiety on both the manager and the employee, giving an employee high ratings when they are not deserved does not help employees improve his or her performance. A poor performer that receives high ratings will not change his or her behavior because areas of improvement are not addressed.
Central tendency error occurs when a rater does not give high or low ratings, but tends to stay in the middle of the rating scale. Similar to the leniency error, managers that rate employees in the middle do so to avoid conflict with employees. Rather than rate a poor performer at the lowest spectrum of the scale, many managers feel they are being more fair if they rate the individual in the middle of the scale. Again, employees are not getting a true sense as to how his or her performance is rated.
|
|
|
