Lori Mackenzie, JoAnne Wehner and Shelley Correll* say most performance reviews follow a predictable pattern, but one of them is highly susceptible to bias.
Although every organisation relies on a different evaluation process, most performance reviews follow a predictable pattern: they invite employees to write about their accomplishments and what they need to improve.
Then managers write assessments of their work, offer feedback, and rate their performance on a scale of how well they met expectations.
Underlying this process is the belief that by reflecting on people’s performance and codifying it in an evaluation form, we will be able to assess their merits objectively, give out rewards fairly, and offer useful feedback to help them develop in the next year.
But while we may strive to be as meritocratic as possible, our assessments are imperfect and all too often biased.
As innocuous as the typical form may seem, our research has found that it often allows for our implicit biases to creep in.
The problem is the “open box”.
Most forms ask managers broad questions about their employees and offer a blank space or open box that managers can fill with assessments, advice, and criticisms.
The ambiguity of these questions is by design: they are general and open-ended precisely because they must apply to everyone in the organisation, regardless of level or function.
So, when the form states “Describe the ways the employee’s performance met your expectations,” managers are expected to remember or figure out on their own what the specific expectations were for that particular employee.
The trouble is, when the context and criteria for making evaluations are ambiguous, bias is more prevalent.
As many studies have shown, without structure, people are more likely to rely on gender, race, and other stereotypes when making decisions.
And while ambiguity opens the door to bias, our research shows that individuals can take actions to reduce that ambiguity and be more objective when filling in the open box.
Open box = open to bias
We uncovered patterns of ambiguity in how performance reviews are written that can lead to a disadvantage for women.
In analysing men’s and women’s written performance reviews, we discovered that women were more likely to receive vague feedback that did not offer specific details of what they had done well and what they could do to advance.
Men were more likely to receive longer reviews that focused on their technical skills.
Next, we observed some performance discussions in what are known as “calibration” or “talent review” meetings.
At these sessions, leaders have a fixed time to provide rationale for an employee’s rating, and then they discuss and align their ratings.
As with written reviews, these presentations had a wide degree of variation.
In some, the conversation focused on the employee’s accomplishments and strengths.
In others, a balanced view was given including opportunities to improve.
The majority of criticisms of women’s personalities were about being too aggressive, where the majority for men were about being too soft.
The lack of structure led to very different reviews that tended to advantage men — describing them in ways that align with leadership and providing them the coaching they need to advance, while offering women less praise and less actionable guidance to work with.
‘Constrain’ the open box
A new system would not necessarily change how managers wrote evaluations.
Instead, we identified a set of discrete actions that managers could take to make their evaluations fairer and more effective.
Since open boxes in performance review documents were inviting bias, we looked for ways to require specificity in managers’ assessments.
With the input of the managers, we created a checklist to help them consistently reference specific and predetermined data when filling the open boxes.
First, it asked “Did you collect the following evidence/data for this employee over the past 6 months” to ensure that comparable data was collected for all employees.
Then the checklist asked managers to use the same criteria for all employees by prompting, “While writing your evaluations did you consider the following (previously agreed criteria)?”
Guided by these questions, managers were able to offer more specific and evidence-based feedback to their employees.
In our study, when managers consistently applied their criteria to employees, there was a reduction in the gender gaps in ratings.
You can make your performance reviews fairer and more consistent too, even if your organisation does not change the review form.
Here are three small yet impactful things you can do to “constrain” the open box:
Create a rubric for evaluations
Managers often report that they start writing their evaluations without first reviewing their employees’ original goals or establishing a methodology to ensure the assessments are fair.
An effective rubric first defines the criteria against which the employee’s performance will be assessed.
Then, it requires taking evidence from the employee’s outcomes to assess whether they did or did not meet expectations.
By first creating a rubric, then filling in the open box with your assessment and feedback, you will be less prone to be influenced by your gut reactions.
Research shows that when you first agree to the criteria used in the assessment and then you make the evaluation, you are less likely to rely on stereotypes and your assessments are less biased.
Create better prompts
When writing reviews, managers often vary in what they cover, how much they write, and even how specific the comments are.
It might be tempting to think this variation reflects the employee’s actual performance, when in fact it might be implicit bias in action.
Better prompts can help you approach each review in a similar manner, ensuring everyone is evaluated and considered in a consistent and equal way.
Run a consistency check
Get in the habit of rereading all reviews for consistency.
Even if you have clarified the criteria and created checklists to guide your assessments, you may still fall into patterns that are more favourable to some employees.
By looking for uniformity — or patterns of variation — you may find additional ways to remove bias.
* Lori Mackenzie is Executive Director of the Clayman Institute at Stanford University. JoAnne Wehner is a sociologist at the VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab at Stanford University. Shelley Correll is Professor of Sociology and Organisational Behaviour at Stanford University.
This article first appeared at hbr.org.
