Digital technology is playing an increasingly important role in the employee evaluation process, with performance analysis apps allowing employees to review their colleagues. Many aim to extend the reach of the traditional 360-degree feedback approach by removing any barriers to giving feedback.
Research from George Mason University highlights how these apps are increasingly being viewed as an employee engagement tool as they provide the instant feedback so often craved by modern employees.
“They want to know how they perform here and now, and be able to comment on other people’s performance in the same way,” the researchers explain. “So when we merge these trends of social connectedness, instant communication, and use of technology, we come up with this wonderful application.”
Real-time feedback
The provision of real-time feedback to employees is not without limitations, however. For instance, despite the scale and speed inherent in these platforms, it’s by no means guaranteed that the feedback itself will be free of the various biases that blight more traditional forms of feedback.
The researchers focus on the kind of bias that emerges when employees are deeply embedded within the various informal networks across their organization. They analyzed data pooled from DevelapMe, which allowed them to access around 4,000 instances of real-time feedback from across five different organizations. The researchers also mapped the informal networks in each business to see whether they influenced how feedback was given.
After comparing the reviews with the status of each employee, it emerged that one’s position in the business mattered. This was the case whether employees were in an influential social circle, even if they weren’t particularly high status themselves. These people were more inclined to give positive reviews to colleagues.
By contrast, when employees were structurally embedded, meaning that they tended to have a wider range of contacts but they were weaker ties. A good example is a middle manager who is involved in multiple teams. These people would be more inclined to give negative reviews to colleagues.
A matter of perspective
“Informal network bias could be explained as a matter of perspective. From atop the hierarchy, it’s difficult to see how projects came together and who made what happen,” the researchers explain. “Positionally embedded people have a coarse rather than a granular view. Therefore, they may give highly visible individuals more credit than they deserve for collaborative work—for example, they may wrongly assume that a team member chosen to present a project to them was primarily responsible for said project.”
Employees who are more structurally embedded tend to have much broader and more diverse social networks. This affords them a broader pool of people to draw comparisons against, which in turn makes them more inclined to pick out flaws in colleagues.
The researchers found that these positional biases tended to be exacerbated when employees were allowed to submit reviews anonymously, even if their identity was ultimately visible to HR.
Verbal differences
One’s status in the organization also had an impact on the type of review given to a colleague. The system allowed people to leave not only a numerical review but also explanatory text to elucidate their appraisal. The research found that positionally embedded employees tended to provide more formal and neutral-sounding feedback.
The reverse was the same for those employees who were structurally embedded. Their reviews tended to be both positive and encouraging in nature. The researchers believe these differences underline the fundamentally different motives of each group between constructive and motivational.
So how can these biases be tackled? One relatively straightforward approach would be to limit the degree to which employees can post feedback anonymously. Similarly, HR managers can mandate that each review is accompanied by explanatory text. Managers can also utilize training to ensure that informal network biases don’t become pervasive.
For instance, if managers are positionally embedded, they can be encouraged to ensure that their reviews are as objective as possible, perhaps by looking outside of their immediate bubble and gaining a more holistic perspective on the employee they’re assessing.
“Our data and findings show the mechanisms of how people—not necessarily high-ranking people—can have power over rewards, because at the end of the day the ratings will be factored into a formal evaluation,” the researchers conclude. “And bonuses will be distributed on the basis of the evaluation. How that decision is being made can be greatly impacted by the data that we analyze, and that we obtain from this network.”
