Title: human resource management

Mini Case 2 Performance evaluation biases and what to do about them (a short and modified version of a HBR write-up) For performance measurement, most organization relies on a different evaluation process but most follow a predictable pattern: First, they invite employees to write about their accomplishments and what they need to improve. Then managers write assessments of their work, offer feedback, and rate their performance on a scale of how well they met expectations. Underlying this process is the belief that by reflecting on peoples performance and codifying it in an evaluation form, we will be able to assess their merits objectively, give out rewards fairly, and offer useful feedback to help them develop in the next year. But while we may strive to be as meritocratic as possible, our assessments are imperfect and all too often biased. It often allows for our implicit biases to creep in. The problem is the open box. Most forms ask managers broad questions about their employeese.g., Describe the ways the employees performance met your expectations or What are their significant accomplishments?and offer a blank space or open box that managers can fill with assessments, advice, and criticisms as they see fit. The ambiguity of these questions is by design: They are general and open-ended precisely because they must apply to everyone in the organization, regardless of level or function. So when the form states Describe the ways the employees performance met your expectations, managers are expected to remember or figure out on their own what the specific expectations were for that particular employee. The trouble is, when the context and criteria for making evaluations are ambiguous, bias is more prevalent. Without structure, people are more likely to rely on gender, race, and other stereotypes when making decisions instead of thoughtfully constructing assessments using agreed-upon processes and criteria that are consistently applied across all employees. In analyzing mens and womens written performance reviews, women were more likely to receive vague feedback that did not offer specific details of what they had done well and what they could do to advance. Women were more likely to be told, for example, to do more work in person with no explanation about the issue to overcome or the goal of the change. Men were more likely to receive longer reviews that focused on their technical skills, compared to shorter reviews for women that were more concerned with their communication skills. In some performance discussions, leaders have a fixed period of timefor example, three minutesto provide rationale for an employees rating, and then they discuss and align their ratings. In some, the conversation focused on the employees accomplishments and strengths. In others, a balanced view was given including opportunities to improve. People varied in what criteria was important or valued, and these patterns of variance often followed gendered expectations. The majority of criticisms of womens personalities were about being too aggressive, where the majority for mens were about being too soft. The informal format allowed leaders to override one anothers presentations with simple phrases like, The style stuff doesnt matter. He is great, and it is irrelevant. And lack of structure led to very different reviews that tended to advantage mendescribing them in ways that align with leadership and providing them the coaching they need to advance, while offering women less . Questions: (1) Identify what are the problems of performance evaluation mentioned in the case and analyze them from your experience of the class (2) Biases in evaluation are often noted in many organizations. What biases are highlighted in this case and how they can be fixed? (3) What is your opinion about evaluating employees performance in general regardless of their area of specialization and specification?