Biased appraisals have a variety of causes. One study of bias (the tendency for individual differences to affect judgements) focused on rater personality. Raters who scored higher on 'conscientiousness' tended to give their peers lower ratings-they were stricters, in other words; those more 'agreeable' gave higher ratings-they were more lenient.
Managers also tend to be more lenient when appraising subordinates for administrative purposes like pay raises than for development purposes. Furthermore, "performance ratings amplify the quality of the personal relationship between boss and. employee.
Good relationships tender to create good [appraisal] experiences, bad relationships bad ones." Unfortunately, subordinates' demographic traits (age, race, gender, and so on) also affect ratings.
A 36-year-old supervisor ranked a 62-year-old subordinate at the bottom of the department's rankings, and then fired him. The court held that the younger boss's discriminatory motives might have prejudiced the dismissal decision.
In one study, promoted women had to have received higher performance ratings than promoted men to be promoted, "Suggesting that women were held to stricter standards for promotion." In another study, raters penalized successful women for their success.
The point is that the appraisal often says more about the appraiser than about the appraisee. (Or, as one researcher said, "Rater idiosyncratic biases account for the largest percentage of the observed variances in performance ratings.")
Potential bias is one reason to use multiple raters, have the supervisor's boss review the rating, and/or have 'calibration' meetings where supervisors discuss their reasons for the appraisals they gave each of their subordinates.
Which one is the correct statement?