Case Study Minimizing Biases in Performance Evaluation (1)

Case Study: Minimizing Biases in Performance Evaluation at Expert Engineering Inc.

Insert name

Institutional affiliation

Case Study: Minimizing Biases in Performance Evaluation at Expert Engineering, Inc.

Introduction

The case study highlights the importance of rate training and the consequences of failure to take rater training seriously in an organization. It also indicates how rating distortion may take place and its impact. The case focuses on Demetri, a veteran engineer who has 15 years’ experience in working in various positions at Expert Engineering Inc. He was recently promoted to the position of Principle at the engineering firm. Demetri is one of the key people in the firm. However, in the firm’s recent hiring initiative where the company was seeking to hire a dozen new engineers, there seems to be tensions and concerns of favoritism among other principles of the firm. This s because among the dozen new engineers hired by the firm, 9 of the engineers are graduates of Purdue University, the university where Demetri graduated from.

Problem Statement

Demetri’s selection of nine of twelve new employees who are graduates of Purdue University raised red flags on favoritism and biased ratings. This is an indication that lack of rater training in Expert Engineering, Inc. affects the fairness and accuracy of the of the hiring and promotion decisions of the firm. The main aim of the hiring initiative was to seek high performing engineers. However, the raters of the firm are undertaking the rating process in the wrong manner. This has led to the creation of a homogenous workplace that is characterized by most employees being graduates of the same university of being employed due to similar personal characteristics. In so doing, Demetri makes the company be liable to expensive litigation by employees who feel there is no fairness in the company. In addition, lack of fairness leads to loss of employee motivation (Wenzel, Krause, & Vogel, 2019).

Even though Demetri has vast experience in the engineering company, it seems the company does not have control over his administrative decisions some of which may be wrong. The company has not provided Demetri with proper rater training. This makes him be susceptible to voluntary or involuntary favoritism during the hiring process, which may have a negative impact on the firm in the long-term. Even though Expert Engineering strives to differentiate itself from other firms in terms of quality and the thoroughness of its performance ratings, its hiring process has not been able to handle Demetri’s intentional or unintentional distortions of the performance ratings. Nevertheless, it is vital to note that regardless of who undertakes the rating, the individual is bound to be affected by biases that would lead to the distortions of the ratings. The occurrence of this situation leads to incorrect decisions such as the one highlighted in the case. This subjects the employer to litigation as other prospective candidates or employees may feel that they are treated unfairly by the firm.

Creating Alternatives

The concerns involving the voluntary or involuntary rating distortion necessitates Expert Engineering to develop a frame of reference training program that would review the accuracy of the rating and provide the raters with the necessary knowledge. In the case in question, Demetri’s selection decisions would benefit from the training program as it would familiarize him with various performance dimensions. The program will ensure there is constant monitoring and analysis of the reasons as to why raters made certain decisions. This would ultimately ensure the firm develops a merit-based cultures that encourages fairness in rating employees and prospective employees.

As the principles of the firm become more conversant with the sources of errors in the rating system, they would be motivated to improve their ratings. This would ultimately facilitate the development of a complex rating system that would tackle any concerns employees and potential employees have on the rating system (Tsai, Wee, & Koh, 2019). It would enable the firm avoid expensive litigation by any parties that feel aggrieved by the biased rating system.

Evaluating Alternatives

The principles of Expert Engineering, Inc. should acknowledge the performance that is required in the rating program. This would necessitate the principles to acquaint themselves with various performance dimensions that should be rated in performance appraisals of existing employees or the recruitment of new employees. Implementing this rater training program would increase the likelihood of raters providing more consistent and accurate rating. It would also help in the development of more effective employee development programs. This type of training would ensure Demetri and other principles of Expert Engineering, Inc. made conscious decisions in the relation to rating and performance evaluation of existing and new employees (Lin & Kellough, 2019). It would reduce the likelihood of the principles engaging in favoritism, unfair promotions, and bias within the firm. It would lead to the development of standards that can be applied throughout the entire company.

Expert Engineering, Inc. should acknowledge the fact that the use of the frame of reference training would be a time-consuming activity. However, it would provide the principles of the firm with regular discussions on the rating progression. This implies that the frame of reference training should be undertaken consistently with the aim of improving the accuracy of the performance rating of the firm. During the early stages, frame of reference training should be undertaken quarterly after which it should be undertaken semiannually. The time that the principles spend in the training would enable them understand how Expert Engineering, Inc. weighs performance measures. It would also enable the principles to determine whether they are differences in the ratings they provide with the recommended ratings of required in the hiring of new engineers.

Implementation

Expert Engineering, Inc. should ensure it select a principle to lead the frame of reference training. This would ensure the firm does not engage in favoritism, unfair promotions, or biases in addition to ensuring it has a diverse workplace. The principles should ensure they meet to discuss the job descriptions of the current or prospective employees being rated and identify the tasks and responsibilities of the employees. In addition, the principle who is designated as the trainer should encourage other principles to use standard interview and appraisal forms. They should also compare their rating between each other to ensure they have the correct ratings in each dimension that is vital in the performance of the roles and responsibilities of each employee or prospective employee. This would facilitate the development of a common performance theory that would be accepted by each principle of the firm. It would also enable the trainer to determine the factors that principles used to decide the ratings of the employees or prospective employees. Nevertheless, the principles should play an active role in seeking additional feedback from the trainer and other principles (Aguinis, 2019). This would ensure help in the development of clear guideline on how appraisal is undertaken in the firm. it would also improve the principles’ knowledge of the guidelines that Expert Engineering, Inc. uses in appraisal of current and prospective employees.

Conclusion

Demetri willingly or inadvertently engaged in favoritism that led to the selection of nine out of twelve employees who were graduates of Purdue University, Demetri’s alma mater. Therefore, it is vital for Expert Engineering, Inc. to develop a rating system that would prevent bias in the selection and promotion of employees. The use of the lead of reference training would facilitating the development of a standard performance rating system that would be free of bias and favoritism.

References

Aguinis, H. (2019). Performance management (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Chicago Business Press.

Lin, Y.-C., & Kellough, J. E. (2019). Performance appraisal problems in the public sector: Examining supervisors’ perceptions. Public Personnel Management, 48(2), 179–202.

Tsai, M. H., Wee, S., & Koh, B. (2019). Restructured frame‐of‐reference training improves rating accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 740-757.

Wenzel, A. K., Krause, T. A., & Vogel, D. (2019). Making performance pay work: The impact of transparency, participation, and fairness on controlling perception and intrinsic motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(2), 232-255.