Nine Major Errors In Performance Appraisal

< p > < strong > 1, < a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > > evaluation index < /a > understanding error < /strong > /p >

< p > the error caused by the difference in the understanding of the evaluation index by the examiner.

It is also a standard of "excellent, good, qualified, and unqualified". However, different examiner will have some deviation in understanding these standards. Similarly, for an employee, a certain examiner may choose "good" for a similar job.

Avoiding this error can be done by following three measures: < /p >

< p > 1) modify the content of the assessment, make the content of the assessment clearer, and quantify the quantification as far as possible.

This will enable the examiner to conduct a more accurate assessment; < /p >

< p > 2) to avoid letting different judges evaluate employees of the same position, and make the evaluation of the same examiner as far as possible, the results of the assessment between employees are comparable; < /p >

< p > 3) to avoid comparing the results of different positions, because the different positions of the judges are different, so the comparative reliability between different duties is poor.

< /p >

< p > strong > two, < a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp" > halo effect < /a > error < /strong > /p >

< p > when a person has a significant advantage, people will mistake him for the same advantages in other aspects.

This is the halo effect.

The same is true in the assessment, for example, the work of the appraiser is very active, and the examiner may mistake his work performance very well, thereby giving the appraiser a high evaluation.

When conducting the examination, the examiner should evaluate the same content of all the examiner at the same time, and do not evaluate it by artificial units, which can effectively prevent the halo effect.

< /p >

< p > < strong > three, and the mean error is less than /strong > /p >

< p > < a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > > the examiner < /a > tends to place the evaluation results in the middle position of the examiner, which will lead to a central error.

This is mainly due to the fear of responsibility or the unfamiliarity of the examiner.

Before the examination, it is necessary to carry out the necessary performance appraisal training for the appraisers, eliminate the worries of the appraisers, and avoid allowing the appraisers who are not familiar with the appraisers to conduct the evaluation, which can effectively prevent the alignment errors.

< /p >

< p > < strong > four, and the recent error < /strong > < /p >.

< p > because people are deeply impressed by recent events and have a simple impression of what happened before, it is easy to produce short-term errors.

The examiner often uses the performance of the evaluated person for nearly a month to judge the performance of a quarter, resulting in errors.

The best way to eliminate recent errors is to conduct a monthly assessment record every month. When the official assessment is conducted quarterly, the monthly assessment records will be taken to get the correct results.

< /p >

< p > < strong > five, personal bias error < /strong > < /p >.

< p > if the examiner likes or dislikes (familiar or unfamiliar), the examiner will have an impact on the evaluation result of the examiner.

The examiner tends to give a higher evaluation to the person he / she likes (or is familiar with), while giving lower evaluation to those who do not like (or are not familiar with). This is the bias of personal bias.

Adopting group evaluation or staff evaluation can effectively prevent personal bias errors.

< /p >

< p > < strong > six, pressure error < /strong > < /p >.

< p > when the appraiser understands that the result of this assessment will be directly related to the remuneration or job change of the appraiser, or if he is afraid of being criticized by the examiner in the evaluation communication, the appraiser may make a high appraisal in view of the above pressure.

To solve the pressure error, we should pay attention to confidentiality of the evaluation results on the one hand, and let the examiner master the skills of evaluation communication on the one hand when evaluating the training.

If the examiner is not suitable for evaluation communication, the human resources department can take the place of it.

< /p >

< p > < strong > seven, perfectionism error < /strong > < /p >.

< p > the examiner may be a perfectionist. He tends to magnify the shortcomings of the examiner, thereby making a lower evaluation of the evaluated person, resulting in perfectionism error.

To solve this error, we should first evaluate the principles and methods of evaluation, and increase the self-evaluation of employees and compare them with the evaluation of the examiner.

If the difference is too large, the assessment should be carefully analyzed to see if there has been perfectionism.

< /p >

< p > strong > eight, self comparison error < /strong > < /p >.

< p > the examiner unconsciously compares the examiner himself with himself, and takes himself as the standard to be judged by the examiner, which will produce a self comparison error.

The solution is to refine and clarify the examination contents and assessment standards, and require the appraiser to conduct strict evaluation according to the requirements of the examination.

< /p >

< p > < strong > nine, blind spot error < /strong > < /p >.

< p > the examiner can not see that the examiner has the same defect because he has some shortcomings, which results in blind spot error.

The solution to blind spot error is the same as that of self comparison error.

< /p >