New research from ESMT Berlin reveals that individuals strategically choose which colleagues to evaluate and how to evaluate them, based on desired perceptions.

The study examined the impact of peer evaluations on Wikipedia members, where such evaluations are transparent. Members can view each other’s complete evaluation history, and these evaluations influence who becomes an administrator.

Strategic evaluation

The researchers focused on three factors: whether the member was about to be evaluated, how pivotal an evaluation was, and the candidate’s activity level.

The study found that members about to be evaluated themselves participate more in peer evaluations. However, they are less likely to participate if their evaluation might offend someone or be pivotal in impacting a peer’s overall assessment. They tend to direct negative evaluations towards inactive members or those whose evaluations won’t significantly alter the outcome.

Interestingly, members do not focus on giving positive evaluations to active peers, indicating they avoid negative reciprocity but do not seek positive reciprocity. This strategic use of peer evaluations appears effective, with members more likely to be evaluated positively and promoted by their peers.

Choosing our peers wisely

“Our research shows that people participate in peer evaluations when it benefits them, avoiding evaluations where the outcome is uncertain to prevent retaliation. As a result, organizations might miss important evaluations when they are most valuable,” the researchers explain.

The findings suggest that while transparency and self-selection make evaluations more accountable, they also allow members to use evaluations to strategically enhance their own standing ahead of their evaluations.

To curb strategic manipulation, organizations should implement transparent peer evaluation processes with clear guidelines. While transparency increases accountability, managers should recognize that employees might use this to their advantage.

Organizations can promote genuine merit-based assessments by ensuring evaluations are open and traceable. This approach can build trust in the evaluation system and enhance organizational fairness and effectiveness.

Managers should encourage balanced evaluations that reflect both positive and negative performance aspects, irrespective of personal stakes. Training programs on effective feedback delivery and the importance of objective evaluations can help mitigate the strategic biases identified in this study.