Performance evaluation inflation and compression

We provide a behavioral account of subjective performance evaluation inflation (i.e., leniency bias) and compression (i.e., centrality bias). When a manager observes noisy signals of employee performance and the manager strives to produce accurate ratings but feels worse about unfavorable errors than about favorable errors, the manager’s selfishly optimal ratings will be biased upwards. Both the uncertainty about performance and the asymmetry in the manager’s utility are necessary conditions for performance evaluation inflation. Moreover, the extent of the bias is increasing in the variance of the performance signal and in the asymmetry in aversion to unfair ratings. Uncertainty about performance also leads to compressed ratings. These results suggest that performance appraisals based on well-defined unambiguous criteria will have less bias. Additionally, we demonstrate that employer and employee can account for biased performance evaluations when they agree to a contract, and thus, to the extent leniency bias and centrality bias persist, these biases hurt employee performance and lower firm productivity.

[1]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[2]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition , 2000 .

[3]  Rachel M. Hayes,et al.  Implicit Contracts and the Explanatory Power of Top Executive Compensation for Future Performance , 1997 .

[4]  E. Fehr A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation , 1998 .

[5]  Frank Moers,et al.  Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity , 2001 .

[6]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  Economic Contests: Comparative Reward Schemes , 1984, Journal of Labor Economics.

[7]  Thomas Giebe,et al.  Optimal Contracts for Lenient Supervisors , 2011 .

[8]  John M. Barron,et al.  Executive compensation. , 1990, Trustee : the journal for hospital governing boards.

[9]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal , 1987 .

[10]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  AGGREGATION AND LINEARITY IN THE PROVISION OF INTERTEMPORAL INCENTIVES , 1987 .

[11]  Roni Michaely,et al.  Conflict of interest and the credibility of underwriter analyst recommendations , 1999 .

[12]  E. Fehr,et al.  When Social Norms Overpower Competition: Gift Exchange in Experimental Labor Markets , 1998, Journal of Labor Economics.

[13]  Bengt Holmstrom,et al.  Moral Hazard and Observability , 1979 .

[14]  H. Lydall The structure of earnings , 1969 .

[15]  Emilio J. Castilla,et al.  The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations , 2010 .

[16]  Suresh Radhakrishnan,et al.  Organization Capital , 2009 .

[17]  Christopher D. Ittner,et al.  Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard , 2003 .

[18]  Florian Englmaier,et al.  Optimal Incentive Contracts Under Inequity Aversion , 2005, Games Econ. Behav..

[19]  Sunil Dutta,et al.  Managerial Expertise, Private Information, and Pay-Performance Sensitivity , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[20]  P. Levy,et al.  The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future , 2004 .

[21]  Robert Gibbons,et al.  Incentives Between Firms (and Within) , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Explaining the Weak Relationship Between Job Performance and Ratings of Job Performance , 2008, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[23]  M. Taylor,et al.  Due Process in Performance Appraisal: A Quasi-Experiment in Procedural Justice , 1995 .

[24]  Lucy F. Ackert,et al.  PRIOR UNCERTAINTY, ANALYST BIAS, AND SUBSEQUENT ABNORMAL RETURNS , 1997 .

[25]  Florian Herold Contractual Incompleteness as a Signal of Trust , 2008 .

[26]  John Gibson,et al.  Eight Questions About Brain Drain , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[27]  Jeanette N Cleveland,et al.  Raters who pursue different goals give different ratings. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  Raymond A. Katzell,et al.  New Patterns of Management. , 1963 .

[29]  N. Kerr,et al.  Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  Tapabrata Maiti,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis (2nd ed.) (Book) , 2004 .

[31]  J Noak,et al.  Performance rating. , 1999, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[32]  Marcel van Rinsum,et al.  In search of informed discretion: an experimental investigation of fairness and trust reciprocity , 2012 .

[33]  Judith Przemeck,et al.  Subjective performance appraisal and inequality aversion , 2012 .

[34]  G. Milkovich,et al.  The Current State of Performance Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications , 1992 .

[35]  J. Montgomery Social Networks and Labor-Market Outcomes: Toward an Economic Analysis , 1991 .

[36]  Canice Prendergast,et al.  Discretion and bias in performance evaluation , 1993 .

[37]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Adding a stick to the carrot? The interaction of bonuses and fines , 2007 .

[38]  G. Baker Incentive Contracts and Performance Measurement , 1992, Journal of Political Economy.

[39]  A. Erez,et al.  Liking and attributions of motives as mediators of the relationships between individuals' reputations, helpful behaviors, and raters' reward decisions. , 2002 .

[40]  Jasmijn C. Bol,et al.  Spillover Effects in Subjective Performance Evaluation: Bias and the Asymmetric Influence of Controllability , 2011 .

[41]  Frank J. Landy,et al.  The mixed standard rating scale: An evaluation , 1977 .

[42]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Multitask Principal–Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design , 1991 .

[43]  Canice Prendergast,et al.  Uncertainty and Incentives , 2002, Journal of Labor Economics.

[44]  Theofanis Tsoulouhas,et al.  Tournaments With Ex Post Heterogeneous Agents , 2007 .

[45]  John R. Moran,et al.  Employee recruiting and the Lake Wobegon effect , 2003 .

[46]  Howard P. Greenwald,et al.  Organizations and Society , 2008 .

[47]  Christian Riis,et al.  Efficient Contests , 2009 .

[48]  Boyan Jovanovic,et al.  Firm-specific Capital and Turnover , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[49]  D. Ariely,et al.  Effort for Payment , 2004, Psychological science.

[50]  Kevin J. Murphy Chapter 38 Executive compensation , 1999 .

[51]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. , 1991 .

[52]  Canice Prendergast,et al.  Favoritism in Organizations , 1993, Journal of Political Economy.

[53]  Edward E. Lawler,et al.  Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategies and Pay Systems. , 1991 .

[54]  J. Tirole,et al.  Incentives and Prosocial Behavior , 2004 .

[55]  Canice Prendergast The Provision of Incentives in Firms , 1999 .

[56]  Xavier Gabaix,et al.  Tractability in Incentive Contracting , 2009 .

[57]  Edward L. Deci,et al.  The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation , 1972 .

[58]  Armando Levy,et al.  Optimal linear contracts with heterogeneous agents , 2002 .

[59]  J. Kruger,et al.  Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[60]  George P. Baker,et al.  Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts , 1993 .

[61]  A. Brix Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd edn , 2005 .

[62]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives , 1995 .

[63]  Jasmijn C. Bol,et al.  The Determinants and Performance Effects of Managers’ Performance Evaluation Biases , 2011 .

[64]  U. Gneezy,et al.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 25, Number 4—Fall 2011—Pages 191–210 When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior , 2022 .

[65]  H. J. Bernardin,et al.  Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[66]  Maurice E. Schweitzer,et al.  Stretching the Truth: Elastic Justification and Motivated Communication of Uncertain Information , 2006 .

[67]  Björn Bartling Relative Performance or Team Evaluation? Optimal Contracts for Other-Regarding Agents , 2010 .

[68]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  Social Context of Performance Evaluation Decisions , 1993 .

[69]  I. M. Jawahar,et al.  WHERE ALL THE CHILDREN ARE ABOVE AVERAGE: THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PURPOSE EFFECT , 1997 .

[70]  E. Lazear,et al.  Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[71]  Carolyn B. Levine,et al.  Earnings Predictability and Bias in Analysts? Earnings Forecasts , 1998 .

[72]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  Sensitivity, Precision, and Linear Aggregation of Signals for Performance Evaluation , 1989 .

[73]  Sudipto Bhattacharya,et al.  Heterogeneity, Tournaments, and Hierarchies , 1988, Journal of Political Economy.

[74]  Gerald A. Feltham,et al.  Performance Measure Congruity and Diversity in Multi-Task Principal/Agent Relations , 2007 .

[75]  Peter Villanova,et al.  Stability of Rater Leniency: Three Studies , 1995 .

[76]  Michael M. Harris Rater Motivation in the Performance Appraisal Context: A Theoretical Framework , 1994 .