Skip to content
Common Biases in Performance Evaluations

icon picker
Common Biases in Performance Evaluations

Take this quiz to learn about common biases that can influence performance ratings
Name that bias!
Allie excels at project management but knows very little about computer programming. As a result, she unknowingly gives higher marks to those who are good at computer programming and lower marks to those who are good at project management or other skills that are similar to her own.
At the beginning of the year, Jamie landed a huge deal for the company and received a ton of recognition as a result. But in the last two months, her performance has slipped. Unfortunately, for her performance evaluation, Jamie’s manager focused only on the recent events of the past few months and didn’t acknowledge her incredibly valuable contributions from earlier in the year.
Nenye is highly productive, technically skilled, and a pleasure to work with. Nenye’s manager may receive feedback that supports these beliefs, which they’re going to believe. However, when that manager receives feedback that’s contrary to their beliefs about him, they ignore that valuable piece of information.
“Nick could work on his technical expertise”; “Susan is challenging to work with.” Feedback for Nick is focused on his skills and accomplishments, but feedback for Susan is focused on her personality and attitude.
Tamira gives greater weight to events that come to mind easily (either really good or really bad) when evaluating her direct reports.
“She blew it”; “It could happen to anyone”. Kiara’s mistakes are noticed more and remembered longer, but Jake’s mistakes are written off.
Brett gives higher ratings to colleagues that he has more in common with even though his other colleagues are doing equally high-quality work.
Fathers face expectations that they will not—or should not—take time off for caregiving. They may be seen as deserving more pay or promotion because of their presumed family role.
James produces high quality work, but his manager Josh rates him poorly because James’s work style differs from Josh’s.
“She’s not ready”; “He’ll crush it”. Sally is judged on performance, but Mark is judged on potential.
Elliot is evaluating her peers one after the other and ends up comparing her colleagues’ performance to each other instead of considering how each individual performed in relation to their role expectations.
Niceness may be optional for men, but is required of women.
Annie is pressured to be a “worker bee” who works hard and is undemanding, but if she complies, she lacks “leadership potential.”
Mothers are stereotyped as less competent and committed, are held to higher performance and punctuality standards—and are half as likely to be promoted as identical candidates without children.
Mark is applauded for being direct, competitive, and assertive, but the same behavior in Tenisha is perceived as “tactless,” “selfish,” “difficult”, or “abrasive.”
Jordan is conventionally attractive, and as a result is perceived as more competent despite her poor communication skills.
Mothers who work long hours tend to be disliked and held to higher performance standards. Opportunities or promotions may be withheld on the assumption that mothers will not—or should not—want them.
Arnold consistently produces average-quality work, but Bob goes the extra mile on his projects and delivers outstanding outcomes. Despite these differences, their manager gives them the same rating of “Above Average” on their performance review to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings.
Asia gave almost everyone on her team a 3 out of 5. This is a common occurrence as many managers don’t like being extreme and trend moderate in their reviews.
Employees without children may face the assumption that they can always pick up the slack because they have “no life.”
There are no rows in this table
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
) instead.