Most leaders enter performance reviews with the right intent. They are looking to fairly and accurately evaluate each team member’s performance and allocate a rating that aligns with the organisation’s preferred approach and the employee's performance.
The trouble is, despite their best intention, leaders can be guilty of unconscious bias creeping into their appraisals. There has been extensive cognitive neuroscience research demonstrating that whilst we may believe that we are applying ratings fairly and consistently – some common rater biases sit within us unconsciously, which can impact performance ratings.
Unconscious bias, also known as implicit bias, is what happens when we act on subconscious, deeply ingrained biases, stereotypes, and attitudes formed from our inherent experiences, upbringing and environment.
Unconscious biases are different from conscious or explicit biases – which are intentionally discriminative. The workplace aims to protect workers from direct bias that results in discrimination via legislation and policy; however unconscious bias is more problematic to manage as it is not intentional and is usually the result of not questioning our beliefs and decisions – even when they ‘feel right’.
Unfortunately, there are several types of biases that can affect a performance review. The following table highlights some of the common traps that leaders fall into:
Common bias |
What does the bias mean? |
How does this play out in a performance review? |
|
Affinity bias |
A tendency to favour our own social group or ‘in group’ more than individuals who are not in our group (outgroup). It can also be withholding praise or not seeing achievements of the outgroup as clearly. |
Leaders are more likely to turn a blind eye or be lenient to employees who they have a social preference for and who may be part of their social construct at work. They may also overlook achievements of the ‘outgroup’. |
|
The ‘halo effect’ |
This is where a single positive aspect of a person’s behaviour or performance leads us to believe that they are better overall. |
Leaders see a positive behaviour or action – e.g., strong contributor in meetings and then draw the conclusion the employee is above average overall. |
|
The ‘horns effect’ |
This is the opposite of the halo effect, and it is when a negative aspect of a person’s behaviour or performance leads us to believe that they are not good overall. |
Leaders see a negative behaviour or action – e.g., talking too much in team meetings and then draw the conclusion that the employee is unproductive and not task focused. |
|
Recency bias |
This is where our memory favours the most recent memory or experience. |
If a sales employee missed their last quarter targets, the recency bias may affect the leader’s perception of the employee’s overall performance – even though they may have made their previous quarter’s target. In a performance review, the recency bias can be good or bad for the employee based on their recent performance. |
|
Distance bias |
This is where there is a belief that people that are closest to us, in the same workplace location are more valuable to the business based on our visibility of performance. |
In a climate of geographically dispersed teams and remote work environments, distance bias can place some employees at a disadvantage based on their physical location. |
|
|
This is prevalent in performance reviews with some leaders placing employees in the same category with performance. |
Some leaders tend to place employees in the same rating category to avoid the requirement to differentiate performance. Similarly, some leaders can fall victim to high or low rating bias. |
|
‘Like me’ bias |
This is the inclination to favour people with similar interests, skills and backgrounds. |
This could be barracking for the same footy team or having children in the same school – or even sharing the same ethnicity. |
|
Confirmation bias |
It is our natural tendency to search for and recall information that confirms preconceived beliefs. |
If a leader believes an employee is ‘lazy’, the first time they are late this belief is confirmed rather than looking objectively |
|
Gender bias |
Some leaders focus more on the personality and attitudes of women and more on the accomplishments of men. |
In this bias, women may receive a comment such as “Emma gets on really well with her teammates”, whilst the men may receive comments focused on their technical abilities. |
Unconscious bias is not something that leaders set out to let creep into performance reviews, but it is a normal part of how we quickly process information in our brains. Unconscious bias is far more prevalent than conscious prejudice and it should be noted that it is often incompatible with a person’s conscious values. Unconscious bias is more likely to creep in when someone is tired, working under pressure, or in the case of performance reviews – armed with the task of completing multiple in a short time. Irrespective of the reason or intent, unconscious bias is a red flag that can lead to discrimination in the workplace.
Some of the implications of unconscious bias in performance reviews may include:
Unconscious bias can lead to unfair inflations or deflations of performance ratings which left unchecked may have significant implications for the business. It is extremely difficult to completely remove; however, organisations can reduce the risk by creating awareness, conducting training and putting more ‘checks and balances’ in place.
It is important to note that conduct can be discriminatory even if there was no intention to discriminate, so an employer's claim that discrimination was 'unintentional' is not going to be enough. Employers are encouraged to take proactive steps to identify and reduce unconscious bias in the workplace. Common areas where bias can have a negative impact on employees includes promotions, performance ratings, pay reviews and application of bonuses. Recent changes to the Fair Work Act prohibiting pay secrecy also mean that it is harder than ever for employers to hide practices that result in inexplicable differences in pay between employees.
Shifting the dial on unconscious bias in performance means building a leadership team that is prepared to challenge their initial thoughts by seeking evidence, collecting feedback from others, and paying close attention to different perspectives. Employers that adopt proactive strategies stand to reap the benefit of retaining an engaged and diverse workforce by enabling a fair performance process.
For assistance with your workplace matters, Members of Ai Group can contact us or call our Workplace Advice Line on 1300 55 66 77 for further information. Ai Group has an extensive performance management section offering members a range of tools, resources and support to optimise and manage performance. Ai Group offers training on Unconscious Bias to support members in better understanding how heuristics and biases can affect judgement and decision-making.
Take advantage of more than 150 years of experience actively solving Members’ workplace issues and representing their interests at the highest levels of national and state government. Being a Member of Ai Group makes good business sense.
Download our brochure to see why you should join and call us on 1300 55 66 77 or visit our Why join page to sign up for a consultation with one of our member representatives.
Georgina is Senior HR Content Editor – Publications at Ai Group. She is an accomplished Human Resource professional with over 25 years of generalist and leadership experience in a broad range of industries including financial services, tourism, travel, government and agriculture. She has successfully advised and partnered with senior leaders to implement people and performance initiatives that align to business strategy. Georgina is committed to utilising her experience to create resources that educate and engage and is passionate about supporting members to optimise an inclusive workforce culture that drives performance.
