Many performance management programs include a self-assessment component. Self-assessment is a most constructive practice, and its inclusion in these programs is advantageous to both employee and employer. But this practice can also be dangerous for employees who are unaware of the effects of a cognitive bias called the Availability Heuristic. That cognitive bias can cause some employees to produce self-assessments that are biased in favor of the employer. The bias comes about from what might be called the Availability Paradox.
The Availability Heuristic is the method we humans use to estimate the probabilities of events. We're using the Availability Heuristic [Tversky 1973] when we estimate these probabilities by sensing the difficulty of imagining or understanding the string of events that lead to the event in question.
For instance, when we ask people whether death resulting from being attacked by a shark is more likely or less likely than death from being hit by falling airplane parts, they usually answer that death from shark attack is more likely. Actually, death from being hit by falling airplane parts is 30 times more likely, but people are fooled because it's easier to imagine shark attacks, which are more common.
The Availability Paradox (my term) arises when judgments of the likelihood of events are based not only on the difficulty (or ease) of imagining the events or understanding how they could possibly arise, but also on the difficulty (or ease) of recalling such events. [Schwarz 1991] I first encountered this idea while reading a brilliant and very accessible book by Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow. [Kahneman 2011]
Unfortunately, The Availability Paradox arises
when judgments of the likelihood
of events are based not only on
the ease of imagining the events
or how they could possibly
arise, but also on the
difficulty of recalling thememployers can use the Availability Paradox to depress employee self-assessments. It works like this. If I ask an employee to list six incidents in which the employee took action to improve the project management process, and then to rate himself or herself on a scale of 1-5 with respect to contributing to process improvement, the employee will produce some numerical result. But if I were to ask the same employee for a rating after requiring him or her to list 12 such incidents, that rating, on average, would be lower. The reason for this is that people include in such assessments the difficulty of recalling the incidents. Since recalling 12 incidents is more difficult than recalling six, the ratings produced for the 12-incident self-assessment are likely lower, on average, than were the ratings for the six-incident assessment.
Although it's safe to assume that some employers intentionally exploit the Availability Paradox to reduce pressure from employees for increasing compensation, the consequences of this bias are disturbing for both employee and employer. Because the consequences most likely to be overlooked are negative consequences for employers, I offer below three suggestions of possible negative consequences for employers who rely on biased self-assessments of employee performance.
- Underestimation of employee effectiveness
- To the extent that biased employee self-assessment data influences employer estimates of employee effectiveness, employers might underestimate the overall effectiveness of existing staff. Those employers who believe (mistakenly) that self-assessments are inherently biased in favor of employees are more likely to be harmed by the Availability Paradox. These effects can lead employers to hire or retain more staff than necessary, or to assign excessive staff to critical projects, which can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of low productivity.
- Trepidation about taking reasonable risks
- Employees who underestimate their own effectiveness can experience a lack of confidence that can reduce their inclination to take reasonable risks. When this reluctance expands to the organizational scale as a result of the performance management system, it can reduce overall organizational effectiveness by making the organization generally and unreasonably risk averse. These effects might be temporally correlated with — but lag slightly behind — annual performance review processes.
- Favoring less honest, less capable employees
- Some organizations use performance management system data regarding employee effectiveness to determine how to advance employees' careers. These organizations are at risk in two ways. First, employees who are more capable than their performance records would indicate are more likely to terminate voluntarily when they secure more promising career advancement opportunities. Second, employees who are willing to engage in puffery, exaggeration, and dissembling in their self-assessments are more likely to be rewarded than are their more honest peers, all other factors being equal. The result of these phenomena is a skewing of the employee population away from honest, effective people, and toward less honest, less effective people.
In some sense, organizations that intentionally exploit the Availability Paradox probably get what they deserve. But other organizations would be well advised to abandon procedures that carry any significant risk of the Availability Paradox, and to do what they can to correct for it in all processes that contain self-assessment activities. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Practice Positive Politics
- Politics is a dirty word at work, as elsewhere. We think of it as purely destructive, often distorting
decisions and leading the organization in wrong directions. And sometimes, it does. Politics can be
constructive, though, and you can help to make it so.
- Ethical Influence: I
- Influencing others can be difficult. Even more difficult is defining a set of approaches to influencing
that almost all of us consider ethical. Here's a framework that makes a good starting point.
- Workplace Politics and Integrity
- Some see workplace politics and integrity as inherently opposed. One can participate in politics, or
one can have integrity — not both. This belief is a dangerous delusion.
- When the Answer Isn't the Point: I
- When we ask each other questions, the answers aren't always what we seek. Sometimes the behavior of
the respondent is what matters. Here are some techniques questioners use when the answer to the question
wasn't the point of asking.
- Intentionally Misreporting Status: I
- When we report the status of the work we do, we sometimes confront the temptation to embellish the good
news or soften the bad news. How can we best deal with these obstacles to reporting status with integrity?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 28: Checklists: Conventional or Auditable
- Checklists help us remember the steps of complex procedures, and the order in which we must execute them. The simplest form is the conventional checklist. But when we need a record of what we've done, we need an auditable checklist. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
- And on March 6: Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info