How would you reply to this post!!

Thank you for your post as you have provided a thorough analysis of the halo effect and recency bias in performance evaluations! What additional strategies could organizations adopt to minimize these biases further?

This is my post

Various elements that have the potential to skew performance evaluations A halo effect and recency bias are two prevalent characteristics that have the potential to affect performance evaluations. According to Murphy, Cleveland, Skattebo, and Kinney (2004), the halo effect occurs when a rater's favorable opinion of an employee in one area impacts the evaluation of that person in other areas unrelated to his or her performance. An example of this would be if an employee is particularly likable or performs well in a specific component of their work, the evaluator could give too positive scores across the board, regardless of how well they do in their many roles. Based on DeNisi and Smith (2014), recency bias is a phenomenon that arises when the rater assigns a disproportionate amount of weight to the employee's most recent performance rather than taking into consideration the whole assessment period. It is possible for this tendency to lead to an inaccurate appraisal, particularly in situations where recent occurrences were very positive or negative, which casts a shadow over the total performance throughout the year.

Human resource experts can teach managers to concentrate on specific performance indicators connected to their jobs' duties to combat the Halo Effect. According to Murphy et al. (2004), the use of tools such as behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) can provide more objective assessment criteria, guaranteeing that every facet of performance is evaluated separately. Humana urges managers to adopt ongoing feedback methods throughout the year, such as performance diaries or quarterly check-ins, to combat recency bias. They can guarantee that the whole time is reviewed rather than placing excessive emphasis on current occurrences if they periodically monitor the performance of their employees (DeNisi & Smith, 2014).

The halo effect is a kind of bias that results in a generalized distortion based on an overall perception. This bias often results in consistently good (or unfavorable) evaluations across all skills. The fact that workers are rewarded or penalized solely on a single feature rather than a comprehensive appraisal of their performance affects the system's fairness. On the other hand, recency bias emphasizes the most recent progress in performance, which may result in erroneous evaluations that do not accurately represent the employee's whole work time. In addition to this, it may contribute to a feeling of inconsistency among workers, who could be given an evaluation that is either excessively good or negative as a result of recent occurrences. Recency bias is anchored in the chronology of events, but the halo effect begins with a generalized perception. Both of these variables contribute to the distortion of the performance assessment process by distorting the employee's actual performance.

If they are carried out in a manner that is both fair and successful, performance reviews are a valuable tool for keeping talent. They give a framework that is organized for addressing performance, prospects for development, and chances for career advancement. Pulakos, Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) found that when performance reviews are impacted by biases such as the halo effect or recency bias, they have the potential to cause unhappiness and disengagement among workers, which in turn might motivate them to look for opportunities elsewhere. It is easier for workers to feel appreciated and motivated when they get performance reviews that are transparent, consistent, and focused on growth. This increases the possibility that individuals will remain with the business throughout their employment.