Performance Evaluation: Strategies for Bias Minimization Analysis

This report addresses the critical issue of bias in performance evaluation, particularly focusing on intentional distortions that can undermine the fairness and accuracy of employee assessments. It analyzes a scenario where a newly appointed principal may exhibit biases, such as favoring engineers from his university, and discusses the potential negative consequences of such actions, including unfair treatment and increased legal risks. The report identifies various intentional rating factors of distortion and proposes interventions to mitigate them, with a strong emphasis on rater training programs. These programs are designed to equip raters with the tools to implement performance management systems effectively, reduce favoritism, and establish a merit-based culture. The report also suggests avoiding the promotion of underperforming employees and focusing on the selection of engineers based on their capabilities and contributions to the firm's growth. The conclusion underscores the importance of minimizing intentional distortion to build a strong, meritorious engineering team.

Running head: BIAS MINIMIZATION IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Bias Minimization in Performance Evaluation
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
BIAS MINIMIZATION IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Response to question 1:...................................................................................................................2
Response to question 2:...................................................................................................................4
Conclusion:......................................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................6

2
BIAS MINIMIZATION IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Introduction
The history of evaluation of the performance of the firm is long and at the same time
unique as well. A person named Demetri has been promoted to the designation of a principal at a
firm of engineering very recently. All the principals associated with this particular engineering
firm got involved for the aim of evaluation of all the capable engineers (Van Geert et al., 2016).
This reason behind the principals evaluating the engineers formed the feedback and evaluation of
various kinds of sources which in turn is believed by each and every founder of this respective
firm. On the other hand, it has been done for the aim of preventing any kind of favoritism and at
the same time promoting a culture on the basis of the meritorious engineers.
But on the other hand, it could be witnessed that a long history is associated with the firm
with respect to the appraisals of the quality performances for the aim of ensuring the accuracy of
the evaluation of all the performances (Tavoletti, Stephens & Dong, 2019). Further, the
intentional rating factors of distortion would be discussed which is present within the scenario.
Various kind of interventions of which would be essential for minimizing intentional distortion
of rating along with its reasons would also be described and recommended as well.
Response to question 1:
Several kinds of intentional rating factors of distortion which might come into play with
respect to this particular situation is that Demetri mainly focused on moving forward with the
initiative of hiring and an essential factor was that there were nine engineers who were really
new and were from his university only (Speer, Tenbrink & Schwendeman, 2019). So, in the
context of intentional rating factors of distortion, he might have desired of having a better quality

3
BIAS MINIMIZATION IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
of relationship with his respective colleagues such that the new engineers who belonged from the
same university might face the advancements of this particular point.
In addition to this, being a new principal of this particular firm, all the new subordinates
belonging from the same university could contribute towards the reduction of various kinds of
risks which are linked with confronting with the principal such that he could be capable of
managing those particular subordinates in a much easier manner (Park, 2017). This particular
scenario on the other hand is totally an injustice form which further could have a negative
impact. Not only it would impact in a negative manner but also it might lead to a severe problem
as well. This could be indicated as an intentional rating factors of distortion which comes into
play.
On the other hand, it is also commonly known that any principal whosoever is involved
within the procedure of evaluation of several engineers who are known by them would in turn
get favored by them (Loignon et al., 2017). On the other hand, the inclusion of feedback and
evaluation of various kinds of sources helped all the principals in checking their respective
favoritism and they were also accountable for promoting a culture on the basis of the merits.
Hence, it could be easily understood that the ratings of the performances given by the students of
the other universities have been distorted in an intentional manner.
This particular scenario might further lead towards making of correct decisions with
respect to the betterment of this particular engineering form (Lambert et al., 2016). On the other
hand, this intentional distortion in the context of rating of the performances as at some point of
time the employees could feel or face any sort of unfair treatment and additionally this particular
firm of engineering would get comparatively more prone towards litigation which is not

4
BIAS MINIMIZATION IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
beneficial at all (Schleicher et al., 2019). Intentional distortion also gets created because of the
occurrence of several kinds of unintended which gets created by the accountable raters which in
turn possesses higher levels of impacts.
Response to question 2:
Several kinds of initiatives like that of numerous programs of rater training could be
taken up for the aim of preventing several kinds of distortions related with the rating of the
performances. The reason behind this is several kinds of programs of training of raters possesses
various types of objectives for providing the raters with numerous tools which would help them
in the context of the implementation of PMS or performance management systems in both
efficient as well as effective manner (Christiansen et al., 2017). These kinds of programs would
in turn help in prevention of the creation of intentional distortion in rating of the performances.
This particular system would avoid the distortion of the ratings which were done in an
intentional manner as it would be beneficial for all the engineers as no favoritism would take
place at the time of rating them and at the same time a culture would get established on the basis
of merits (Paseková et al., 2017). In addition the employees would not feel that they are treated
in an unfair manner and in turn they would feel encouraged to give their best performances
(Henle, Dineen & Duffy, 2019). In addition to this, the other intervention which could be opted
by all the principals for the aim of avoidance of any kind of intentional distortion with respect to
rating down of performances is the avoidance of promoting all those particular employees who
are totally undesired and are not contributing their best performances towards the growth of this
particular engineering firm.

5
BIAS MINIMIZATION IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The training programs of the rates also focuses on both ranking as well as the ranking of
several kinds of activities which in turn could help the accountable in selecting only those
particular engineers who are capable of those activities performed within the firm and not those
engineers for whom the principal or particularly Demetri possesses a favoritism as they belong to
the same college as that of Demetri.
Conclusion:
Various types of the intentional distortion with respect to the rating of the performances
must be avoided such that this particular firm of engineering could install a good base of
engineers who are meritorious and not those who get selected as they have passed out of the
same university as that of one of the principals like Demetri. On the other hand, several kinds of
remedial programs also involves several relevant content which are related with several skills
like that of motivation and information as well.
These kinds of programs as well as intervention would help in mitigation of the reasons
which are accountable for the occurrence of several distortions which is intentional in the context
of rating of the performances. Opting of these kinds of procedures would be helpful in rating of
the performances in a systematic manner and the undeserving employees would get eliminated at
the same time.

6
BIAS MINIMIZATION IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
References
Christiansen, N. D., Robie, C., Burns, G. N., & Speer, A. B. (2017). Using item-level covariance
to detect response distortion on personality measures. Human Performance, 30(2-3), 116-
134.
Henle, C. A., Dineen, B. R., & Duffy, M. K. (2019). Assessing intentional resume deception:
Development and nomological network of a resume fraud measure. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 34(1), 87-106.
Lambert, A. J., Peak, S. A., Eadeh, F. R., & Schott, J. P. (2014). How do you feel now? On the
perceptual distortion of extremely recent changes in anger. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 52, 82-95.
Loignon, A. C., Woehr, D. J., Thomas, J. S., Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Ferguson, D. M.
(2017). Facilitating peer evaluation in team contexts: The impact of frame-of-reference
rater training. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(4), 562-578.
Park, S. (2017). Motivating raters through work design: Applying the job characteristics model
to the performance appraisal context. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1287320.
Paseková, M., Svitaková, B., Kramá, E., & Otrusinová, M. (2017). TOWARDS FINANCIAL
SUSTAINABILITY OF COMPANIES: ISSUES RELATED TO REPORTING
ERRORS. Journal of Security & Sustainability Issues, 7(1).
Schleicher, D. J., Baumann, H. M., Sullivan, D. W., & Yim, J. (2019). Evaluating the
effectiveness of performance management: A 30-year integrative conceptual review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 851.

7
BIAS MINIMIZATION IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Speer, A. B., Tenbrink, A. P., & Schwendeman, M. G. (2019). Let’s talk it out: the effects of
calibration meetings on performance ratings. Human Performance, 32(3-4), 107-128.
Tavoletti, E., Stephens, R. D., & Dong, L. (2019). The impact of peer evaluation on team effort,
productivity, motivation and performance in global virtual teams. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal.
Van Geert, E., Orhon, A., Cioca, I. A., Mamede, R., Golušin, S., Hubená, B., & Morillo, D.
(2016). Study protocol on intentional distortion in personality assessment: Relationship
with test format, culture, and cognitive ability. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 933.