Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Appraial Errors Vinay Ravindran


Published on

This presentation captures common errors made in Performance Appraisals.

  • Be the first to comment

Appraial Errors Vinay Ravindran

  1. 1. Common Appraisal Errors
  2. 2. Halo/horns effect Inappropriate generalizations from one aspect of an individual’s performance to all areas of that person’s . performance Ramu’s outstanding writing ability caused his supervisor to rate him highly in unrelated areas where his performance was actually mediocre. 2
  3. 3. First impression Error Tendency of a rater to make an initial positive or negative judgment of an employee and allow that first impression to colour or distort later information A new supervisor noticed an employee who was going through a divorce performing poorly. Within a month the employee’s performance returned to its previous high level, but The supervisor’s opinion of the individual’s performance was affected by the initial negative impression. 3
  4. 4. Similar-to-me effect The tendency of individuals to rate people who resemble themselves more highly than they rate others Laxmi was a single mother with four children and was promoted to supervisor. Unknowingly she rated several other women who were also single mothers higher than their performance warranted. 4
  5. 5. Contrast Effect Tendency of a rater to evaluate people in comparison with other individuals rather than against the standards for the job Think of the most attractive person you know and rate this person on a scale of 1 to 10. Now think of your favorite glamorous movie star. Re- rate your acquaintance. If you rated your friend lower the second time, contrast effect is at work. 5
  6. 6. Stereotyping The tendency to generalize across groups and ignore individual differences Sanjay was quiet and reserved, however, he is well liked and respected by both internal and external customers. His boss rated him lower than the other customer service personnel since he didn’t “fit the mold.” 6
  7. 7. Negative and Positive skew The opposite of central tendency: the rating of all individuals as higher or lower than their performance warrants Ajitha rates all of her employees higher than she feels they actually deserve , in the hope that this will cause them to live up to the high rating. While Laxmi sets impossibly high standards and is proud of never having met an employee who deserved a superior rating. 7
  8. 8. Attribution bias The tendency to attribute performance failings to factors under the control of the individual and performance successes to external causes. Srinivas, attributes the successes of her work group to the quality of her leadership and the failings to their bad attitudes and inherent laziness. 8
  9. 9. Central tendency The inclination to rate people in the middle scale even when their performance clearly warrants a substantially higher or lower rating. Because Harold had a concern that he would not be able to deal with confrontation during an appraisal session, he rated all of his employees as “Meets Expectations.” 9
  10. 10. Recency effect The tendency of minor events that have happened recently to have more influence on the rating than major events of many months ago. Rajitha kept no records of critical incidents. When she began writing the appraisals for her employees she discovered that she could only recall examples of either positive or negative performance for the last two months. 10
  11. 11. Subscribe to HumanResourceOnLine by sending a Blank mail to For feedback send u r mails to 11