Refer to Case Study : Minimizing Biases in Performance Evaluation at Expert Engi

Question

Refer to Case Study : Minimizing Biases in Performance Evaluation at Expert Engineering, Inc. it states that under various engineer titles, veteran engineer demetri worked for expert engineering inc. for almost 15 years. the firm's performance evaluation history is both unique and long. he has recently been promoted to the postion of principle at the engineering firm. all principles are involved in evaluating engineers because the founders of the firm believed in multiple source evaluation and feedback to prevent favoritism and promote a merit based culture . at the same time. the firm has a long history of using quality performance appraisal forms and review meeting to better ensure accurate performance evaluations . several months ago , however the firm initiated a big hiring initiative of a dozen new engineers . nine of whom turned out to be graduates from purdue university. which is the same university from which demetri graduated. indeed , demetri was active in moving forward the hiring initiatives. there is tension and discontent among the other principles. who fear that a time of unchecked favoritism.biased performance rating . and unfair promotion decisions is on the rise

answer the questiosn:

2. Provide a detailed discussion of the intentional and unintentional rating distortion factors that may come into play in this situation.

3. Evaluate the kinds of training programs that could minimize the factors you have described. What do you recommend and why?

Explanation / Answer

Solution:-

As mentioned in the case, all the Principals are involved in the evaluation of the engineers and this mutliple source evaluation and feedback helped check favortism and promoted a merit based culture. However owing to the situation of massive hiring and 75% of them being from a principal's alma mater and him being heavily involved is a question of conflicting interests. There are multiple rating distortions which may arise out of this situation. These may arise from both Demetri and the other principals. Demetri may fall for an unintentional halo effect where he may have an overall positive perception of the engineers from his institute and might tend to rate them higher by default without getting into details. This may also tend to overshadow poor performances to some extent. On the other hand, other principals may have a horn rater effect, where they associate these engineers with Demetri more than them as individual employees. This is the opposite of halo effect and may cause the prinicipals to have a negative perception of such employees even if they are contributing more. A type of intentional bias which may creep in is the leniency bias where Demetri may rate these engineers leniently compared to other principals. Intentional bias is a question of integrity and should be dealt from a disciplinary standpoint.

The training programs that could minimize the factors are:

1. Training on unintentional rater biases before getting involved in a performance evaluation.
2.Training on conflict of interests as in the case of Demetri; ideally he should declare it to be a conflict of interest and let the other principals take charge on this.
3. Sensitivity trainings to avoid intentional/unintentional stereotyping of individuals from simillar backgrounds
4. Training all managers on best performance management practices like smart goals, objective evaluation, etc.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.