Editorial
Digital technology is playing a growing role in the employee evaluation process, with performance analysis applications 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 modern employees so often crave.
As the researchers explained, “When we merge these trends of social connectedness, instant communication and use of technology, we come up with this wonderful application."
However, 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.
Real-Time Feedback
The researchers at George Mason focused 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. When employees were in an influential social circle (positionally embedded), even if they weren't particularly high status themselves, they 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 weaker ties, they would be more inclined to give negative reviews to colleagues. A good example of this type of employee is a middle manager who is involved in multiple teams.
Related Article: The Right Way and the Wrong Way to Measure Remote Work
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 explained. "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 bigger pool of people to draw comparisons against, which in turn makes them more inclined to pick out flaws in colleagues.
Learning Opportunities
Conference
May
9
An Irish Roundtable in the Valley: The Economic Impact of AI on the World of Work Stanford 2024
Exploring the Impact of AI On the World of Work with Irish diaspora leaders and tech business champions from the North of Ireland
Register
Webinar
May
16
Advance Interoperability in Healthcare: How to Navigate Barriers and Improve Clinical Quality Outcomes
Discover how enhancing your interoperability strategy can drive better outcomes for both patients and staff.
Register
Webinar
May
21
Navigating the GenAI Era: Skills to Scale and Strategies to Stay Ahead
Join us for an insightful conversation as we delve into the world of Generative AI and its profound impact on the workforce.
Register
Webinar
May
23
Beyond Compliance: Maximizing Efficiency in Healthcare Workforce Management
How to leverage tech for smarter scheduling and better employee experience in healthcare? Register to learn.
Register
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, despite generally giving higher numerical ratings.
The reverse was the same for those employees who were structurally embedded. Their reviews tended to be both positive and encouraging in nature, even if they were stricter with numerical ratings. The researchers believe these differences underline the fundamentally different motives of each group between constructive and motivational.
Related Article: The Art of Delivering Feedback in Today's Hybrid Workplace
Minimizing Feedback Bias
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."
Learn how you can join our contributor community.
