Are we rating performance or just playing favourites?

Consider a scenario where an employee worked tirelessly throughout the year, ensuring deadlines are met, results are delivered, and consistently going the extra mile.

- PUNEET ARORA

When year-end performance review season arrives, the employee is excited for his hard work to be recognised and rewarded. To his surprise, however, he finds another colleague who spends more time chatting with the manager than actually working, receiving a much higher rating and a better salary increment.

Now imagine a professor who spent months thoughtfully designing an engaging and relevant course. His students learnt a lot from the course. Semester-end ratings came in, and to his surprise, students rated him poorly. Why? Not because he was ineffective, but because he enforced strict deadlines, did not believe in grade inflation, and wasn't as fun or lenient as others.

Performance ratings, whether in workplaces or universities, are common and are intended to measure effectiveness, reward dedication and excellence, and offer feedback and directions for improvement. Organisations use these ratings to determine employee commitment towards work. Universities use these ratings to assess faculty's effectiveness at teaching. One of the biggest issues with such rating systems is that raters (managers or students) are not as objective as they think when assessing actual contributions. Their evaluations can be influenced by subconscious biases, stereotypes, personal preferences, or other irrelevant details that have nothing to do with an individual's performance.