Monthly Archives: April 2010

Preamble: We are often unaware of the many biases and prejudices that influence our social judgments. Psychologists call these the “bias blind spots.” I believe that we can overcome many of these subliminal biases by educating ourselves to be perceptive of them. This is the second in a series of articles on the common rating errors. See my earlier article on the recency bias.

Unconscious Judgments of an Investment Broker

A study conducted in year 2007, highlights two of the most common unconscious biases in social judgment. Prof. Emily Pronin of Princeton University showed study participants one of two pictures of the same man whom she introduced as an investment broker. One picture showed a suited man with a highly regarded Cornell degree and the other showed the man in casual clothing with a degree from a nondescript college. The professor asked her participants how much of a theoretical $1,000 they would invest with each. The participants rated the suited man as more competent. He got $535 on average without having his background checked. In contrast, the causal dresser got just $352. The participants did not consider the second broker as trustworthy and were more likely to have his credentials verified.

The Halo Effect

The “halo effect” is the concept by which a person who is judged positively on one aspect is automatically judged positively on several other aspects without much evidence. For instance, as a result of the halo effect,

• attractive people are often judged as competent and sociable. Film stars and other celebrities are assumed pleasant and sharp-witted,
• inexperienced interviewers tend to pay less attention to a candidate’s negative traits after discerning one or two positive traits in the first few minutes of a job interview,
• charismatic professionals tend to get noticed and move up the corporate ladder faster, irrespective of their technical and leadership skills,
• articulate speakers are likely to be more influential on their audiences even if their messages are poor in form and content.

Politicians, film and TV stars, sportspersons, celebrities and brand managers have learned to construct a halo effect and later capitalize on their perceptible reputations. Apple’s iPod generated positive impressions of other Apple products — the company capitalized on this halo effect and delivered excellent products in the iPhone and iPad. Renowned fashion designers can command higher price points even for ordinary clothes.

The Horns Effect

The “horns effect” or the “devil effect” is the concept by which a person who is judged negatively on one aspect is automatically judged negatively on several other aspects without much evidence. Clearly, this is the corollary to the halo effect.

• For years, American car manufacturers have battled the mistaken public perception that cars made by Japanese companies are of significantly better quality even if American car manufacturers use identical components from the same suppliers and assemble their cars using identical manufacturing processes. Even today, Japanese brand cars resell for much higher prices than American brand cars.

Call for Action

• Reflect on your decision-making process to steer clear of biases. As human beings, we are incessantly forming an opinion of people, objects, and events, both consciously and subconsciously. However, our judgment is rarely free of biases and our measures are not always comprehensive enough. Before reaching any important decision, be sure to collect all the relevant facts and reflect if your thought processes are free of the common biases.
• Understand that perception is reality and be conscious of the image you are projecting. People judge the proverbial book by its cover. Your friends and family, workplace and the society has a certain perception of who you are and what you can do, irrespective of the reality. As much as you would prefer to be evaluated based on who you actually are and what you can actually do, understand that your identity and prospects are based on the perception that other people have about you. Do everything you can to connect people’s perception to the reality. Look and play your role. Begin by reading the seminal article on the topic of personal branding, “The Brand Called You,” written by renowned management author, Tom Peters.

Recommended Reading

• Want to boost your self-confidence? Dress sharply and look neat
• Judging People: Talent is more than skin-deep
• Learn from the top performers in every field
• How to think and perform like a CEO
• Measuring leadership performance in context

***See other articles related to social judgment, rating errors, biases and prejudices, decision process, problem solving, Brand You

Preamble: This is a first of a series of articles on common mistakes in judgment. Even if the focus of these articles is on performance assessment of employees, the discussions hold in all forms of social judgment.

Recency Bias in Performance Assessment

Suppose that you have executed a project effectively and exceeded all expectations during the first ten months of a year. If your manager has overlooked all these achievements and rated you poorly based on a major roadblock your project encountered in November, then you are subject to a Recency Bias. Your manager is in effect evaluating excessively positively or negative, depending on what is most recent.

Many managers tend to rate an employee’s job performance based on a “what has he done lately” mindset. They do not weigh the employee’s performance from earlier in the year (or quarter, if their organizations use a quarterly review system) and tend to rely more on the employee’s performance in the period immediately preceding the performance evaluation deadline. Consequently, achievements and events that happened lately tend to bear more influence on the employee’s performance rating than achievements and events from earlier in the evaluation period.

The cognitive bias (positive or negative) where judgment is founded only on readily recallable recent experiences is termed the ‘Recency Bias’ or ‘Recency Effect.’ This is analogous to people tending to recall items that are at the end of a list rather than items that are in the start of the list. (See Wikipedia’s entry on serial position effect.)

Some employees may exploit the recency bias by being more resourceful and trying to stay in the boss’s good graces in the period leading to performance reviews. I know of a manager who every year organizes community service events at his boss’s favorite non-profit during November and stay in the boss’s good graces ahead of his annual performance review in December. I have also identified wily employees who underperform earlier in a year and shape-up in the months before a performance evaluation is due.

To Avoid Recency Bias, Maintain a Performance Log

If you are a manager, maintain an informal log or diary where you can record each employee’s accomplishments, contributions, praises, and comments from peers and management. When a performance evaluation is due, review all the significant and relevant examples of employee performance you have recorded and write an objective performance summary report. This ensures that you keep yourself informed of your employee’s work and demonstrates that you care about his/her current work and achievements.

As an employee, you can maintain your own log or diary of your achievements. Review this information with your employee once every week. Whether your organization requires a self-assessment or not, refer to this log at the end of the evaluation period, summarize your achievements and submit a concise report to your manager.

Recommended Reading

• Sandwich feedback technique, why it is not effective
• Four telltale signs of an unhappy employee
• Performance management systems: forced ranking
• Effective arguments: explain your opponent’s perspective

***See other articles related to social judgment, rating errors, performance appraisal, performance review, performance evaluation, succeeding as a manager, biases and prejudices