For many companies,performance-review season is kicking off with the new year. Although every organization relies on a different evaluation process, 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 people’s 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. But while we may strive to be meritocratic, our assessments are imperfect.
As innocuous as the typical form may seem, our research has found that it often allows for our implicit biases to creep in. The problem is the “open box.” Most forms ask managers broad questions about their employees — e.g., “Describe the ways the employee’s performance met your expectations” or “What are their significant accomplishments?” — and offer a blank space or open box that managers can fill as they see fit.
These questions are general and open-ended because they must apply to everyone in the organization. So when the form refers to “your expectations,” managers are expected to know 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. As many studies have shown, 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. Our research shows that individuals can take actions to reduce ambiguity and be more objective when filling in the open box.
Our research team conducted in-depth studies of evaluation processes at three companies based in the U.S. We uncovered patterns of ambiguity in how performance reviews are written that can lead to a disadvantage for women.
In analyzing men’s and women’s written performance reviews, we discovered that 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. Men were more likely to receive longer reviews that focused on their technical skills, compared with shorter reviews for women that were more concerned with their communication skills.
Next we observed some performance discussions at two companies in what are known as “calibration” or “talent review” meetings. At these sessions, leaders have a fixed period of time — for example, three minutes — to provide rationale for an employee’s rating, and then they discuss and align their ratings. In some meetings, the conversation focused on the employee’s 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 informal format allowed leaders to override one another’s presentations with simple phrases like, “The style stuff doesn’t matter. He is great, and it is irrelevant.” And lack of structure led to very different reviews that tended to advantage men.
This kind of variance in evaluations did not surprise many managers. In one project, only 15% of women and 24% of men managers had confidence in the performance evaluation process, while most viewed it as subjective and highly ambiguous.
At one site, we identified a set of actions that managers could take to make their evaluations fairer and more effective. With the input of the managers, we created a checklist to help them consistently reference specific and predetermined data when filling the open boxes. It asked, “Did you collect the following evidence/data for this employee over the past six months?” and “While writing your evaluations did you consider the following” previously agreed-upon criteria?
At the end of our engagement, 90% of the managers told us they felt the process helped them be fairer and more consistent. They also felt more confident.
In another site, when managers consistently applied their criteria to employees, there was a reduction in the gender gaps in ratings, eliminating the overrepresentation of men in the top performance category and women in the middle.
You can make your performance reviews fairer and more consistent too, even if your organization does not change the review form. Here are three simple, yet effective things you can do to “constrain” the open box:
— CREATE A RUBRIC FOR EVALUATIONS:
Managers often report that they start writing their evaluations without first reviewing their employees’ original goals or establishing a methodology to ensure the assessments are fair. An effective rubric first defines the criteria against which the employee’s performance will be assessed. Then, it requires taking evidence from the employee’s outcomes to assess whether they did or did not meet expectations.
By first creating a rubric, then filling in the open box with your assessment and feedback, you will be less prone to be influenced by your gut reactions. Research shows that when you first agree to the criteria used in the assessment and then you make the evaluation, you are less likely to rely on stereotypes and your assessments are less biased.
— CREATE BETTER PROMPTS:
When writing reviews, managers often vary in what they cover, how much they write and even how specific or vague the comments are. It might be tempting to think this variation reflects the employee’s actual performance, when in fact it might be implicit bias in action. Better prompts can help you approach each review in a similar manner, ensuring everyone is evaluated and considered in a consistent and equal way. Take the query: “Describe the ways the employee’s performance met your expectations.” To be fairer and more consistent, you might prompt yourself to identify three specific, measurable outcomes for each of your employees.
— RUN A CONSISTENCY CHECK:
Get in the habit of rereading all reviews for consistency. Even if you have clarified the criteria and created checklists to guide your assessments, you may still fall into patterns that are more favorable to some employees. By looking for uniformity, or patterns of variation, you may find additional ways to remove bias.
It might be tempting to think we can just trust our instincts. But implicit bias is difficult to see and therefore difficult to stop. These strategies are powerful precisely because they help us bypass our imperfect and often compromised impressions — and to deliver on our intention to be fair to everyone.
