Why Managers Give Higher Ratings

Why Managers Give Higher Ratingsreadhttpsopenlibumneduorganiz

Why Managers Give Higher Ratingsreadhttpsopenlibumneduorganiz

Why Managers Give Higher Ratings? Read: to an external site. Answer this question: Why do some managers intentionally give an employee a higher rating than deserved? What are the disadvantages of biased ratings? How could this tendency be prevented? words Due: 9/17 Tuesday

Paper For Above instruction

The phenomenon of managers giving higher performance ratings than truly deserved is a well-documented aspect of organizational behavior. This tendency can be driven by a variety of psychological, social, and organizational factors. Understanding why managers engage in such biased rating behaviors, along with the disadvantages and preventative measures, is essential for cultivating fair and accurate performance appraisal systems.

One primary reason managers may intentionally inflate ratings is to maintain positive workplace relationships and avoid conflict. Managers may perceive that assigning higher ratings fosters employee motivation and loyalty, especially if they believe that negative feedback could demotivate employees or lead to dissatisfaction. This behavior is sometimes rooted in the desire to be liked or accepted by employees, which can lead to the phenomenon known as "leniency bias." Additionally, managers may fear repercussions from employees or higher management if they deliver unfavorable evaluations, leading them to overrate performance to maintain a harmonious work environment or to appease supervisors who pressure for favorable appraisals.

Another factor contributing to inflated ratings stems from organizational culture and performance management systems. In some organizations, there is an emphasis on harmony and team cohesion, which discourages honest criticism. Furthermore, when performance appraisals are linked to rewards, promotions, or pay raises, managers may inflate ratings to secure financial or career benefits for their employees, especially if they believe that honest ratings might jeopardize employee incentives.

Biased ratings, particularly inflated ones, have several disadvantages. Firstly, they diminish the accuracy of performance assessments, making it difficult to identify truly high-performing employees and those who need development. This distortion hampers effective talent management and can lead to poor decision-making regarding promotions, compensation, and training. Secondly, inflated ratings can erode trust in the performance appraisal system, leading employees to perceive evaluations as unfair or arbitrary, ultimately decreasing motivation and engagement. Additionally, such biases can create workplace resentment and dissatisfaction among employees who feel their efforts are not accurately recognized, contributing to a toxic organizational culture.

To mitigate the tendency of managers to give inflated ratings, organizations can implement several preventative strategies. First, they can provide comprehensive training on performance appraisal techniques, emphasizing objective and behavior-based evaluations rather than subjective judgments. Implementing 360-degree feedback systems, where input is gathered from multiple sources such as peers, subordinates, and clients, can also help balance individual biases and produce more accurate assessments. Establishing clear, measurable criteria for performance and setting standardized benchmarks reduces room for subjective interpretations. Further, organizations should foster a culture of honesty and transparency, encouraging managers to provide honest feedback without fear of retaliation or retribution. Regular calibration meetings among managers can also ensure consistent standards across teams, minimizing biases. Finally, linking performance ratings to tangible and transparent reward systems that emphasize fairness and merit can discourage managers from inflating ratings merely for organizational convenience.

In conclusion, managers may intentionally give higher ratings than deserved for reasons related to social harmony, organizational culture, and personal or organizational incentives. However, biased ratings pose significant risks to organizational effectiveness and employee morale. Preventative strategies such as training, 360-degree feedback, clear criteria, and fostering a culture of transparency are essential in promoting fair and accurate performance evaluations. Addressing these biases ensures that employees are appropriately recognized and that organizational decisions are based on valid performance data, ultimately supporting a healthier, more productive workplace environment.

References

• Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. (2003). Working at cross purposes: Managing dual identities amid organizational changes. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591-611.
• Fletcher, C. (2001). Appraisal: Motivator or irritant? Personnel Review, 30(3), 319-338.
• Gibbs, G. (2012). How to conduct effective performance appraisals. Harvard Business Review.
• Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (2001). The changing nature of performance management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 2-14.
• Johnson, T. J., & Marlow, S. (2020). Minimizing bias in performance evaluation: Strategies and best practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(4), 356-370.
• Kuvaas, B. (2006). Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: The roles of pay administration and pay level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 365-385.
• Robinson, S. L., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (17th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
• Scala, R., & Tilt, C. (2017). Performance appraisals and organizational justice: The role of transparency and fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 107-119.
• Welch, W., & Welch, J. (2017). The impact of bias on performance ratings. Management Decision, 55(7), 1714-1729.