August 4, 2022
performance management failing

We list the 7 most common mistakes in the performance management failing and how to solve them. Spoiler: the biggest mistake is not having a review.


The performance management failing Assessment is, without a doubt, a fundamental tool for public, private, third sector organizations and of all sizes. The function of this tool is to accurately identify behavioral and technical gaps for employee development, so that this reduction between what is desired by the function/role and what is delivered by the professional is reflected in better results.


That’s why cutting-edge methodologies for People Management use the performance management failing Assessment with a Focus on Competencies based on 4 perspectives, namely:


– Technical Competencies: specific knowledge and tools that employees need to master to perform their function, such as software, standards, languages…


– Behavioral Competencies: based on the attitudes demonstrated by people, related to leadership, focus on results, creativity… It is the individual competitive differential.


– Results: the effective determination of the results, of the goals set for the employee.


– Complexity: the quality with which the assignments are performed, the responsibilities described in the Job Description.


In addition, methodologies based on more than two perspectives make the process less subjective and allow for greater accuracy in reading the results. When performed in 360º format, or multiple sources, it is even more objective.


In fact, subjectivity is one of the most common mistakes in performance management failing Assessment and that is precisely why we have produced this article: we have compiled tips to avoid them and promote a really fair, transparent and meritocratic assessment process, pillars of a Focused Performance Assessment in Competencies that integrates People, Processes and Strategy.




You must have already read that list that highlights the 7 or 8 most common errors in the performance management failing  Assessment found by those who answer the form. But, probably, these articles did not indicate how to solve the situations that caused these cases, which even impact the results of the evaluation. And that can’t happen!


That’s why we’ve separated the most common errors, already highlighted on several sites, and brought the solution to all these problems performance management failing!



  1. Halo Effect

If you do a search on the Internet for this term, you will find many pages that relate it to the Performance Appraisal. This happens because this phenomenon is nothing more than judging someone (or something) based on a single observed positive characteristic, resulting in an idealized and not a real image. It is the famous prejudice, but in an enthusiastic and optimistic way, which can become a “compensatory measure” for points that need development.


How to solve the Halo Effect: The multi-source evaluation process solves this situation. There are several people evaluating the 4 perspectives related to performance, with a reduction in the bias in the results generated.



  1. Horn Effect


The Horn Effect also comes from the judgment of the whole by a part, but in this case, promoted by the evaluator’s dislike for the person being evaluated. As dangerous as the Halo Effect, it is also one of the most common mistakes in performance management failing Appraisal and needs to be avoided.


How to solve the Horn Effect: in the same way that the Halo Effect is solved, that is, promote Performance Evaluation with a Focus on Competencies based on multiple sources or 360º. The aim is not a “witch hunt” and identify “who-answered-what” , but to reduce the subjectivity that causes disastrous results in the evaluation. This model eliminates individual bias and ensures a fairer assessment.


  1. Central Trend

This is common among professionals who feel obligated or are afraid to honestly answer the performance management failing Appraisal. It does not give! It is not possible for a person to give “neutral” or high grades to an employee being evaluated just to not commit.


How to solve the Central Tendency: Two actions are needed to avoid the central tendency:


the first is to make all the organization’s professionals aware of the importance of the project. The reasons for the evaluation must be clarified, informing how the results help professional (and often personal) development, that the process is not aimed at punishment and seeks to optimize capacities and achieve sustainable results for individuals and the organization. Involving leaders and followers is essential to reassure them about the evaluation;


the second action is to focus on the scale used: for the technical assessment, use a scale from 0 to 5, where 0 means “no knowledge” and 5 means “expert”, “expert” or “full mastery”. There is no central alternative and the evaluator will have to make an effort to provide a fair answer. In the behavioral assessment, the idea is to identify how often the behavior is presented by the evaluated professional, therefore, following the same logic, the scale can vary from 0% to 100%, with the following proposition: 0% = Never, 20% = Rarely, 40% = Rarely, 60% = Often, 80% = Often, 100% = All of the time.



  1. Recency Effect


The name itself leads to understanding: the evaluator only remembers the most recent facts. If we consider that, normally, the evaluation is annual, many positive and negative things may fail to appear when reflecting on the answers.


How to solve the Recency Effect: to avoid memory loss, evaluators should make notes about really remarkable situations in relation to those evaluated. In the GCA system , Leme Consultoria’s competency-based performance management failing evaluation software, managers rely on the “Manager Diary” to enter relevant information and, at the time of evaluation and feedback , they can retrieve these notes to offer fairer results.


  1. “First impression” error in performance management failing


It derives from that popular saying: “the first impression is the one that stays”. Unlike the recency error, the “first impression” error occurs when the evaluator maintains his view of the evaluated person based on previous evaluations. However, if the employee previously presented a gap and the company has development policies, it is certain that in the next evaluation it is necessary to notice some change in the results.


How to solve the “first impression” error: some actions are necessary, such as contemplating at the time of raising awareness what the criteria for evaluating employees should be, making it clear that the evaluation is not an opinion on what the evaluator thinks of the evaluated. Another point is to guide managers to make notes of positive and negative occurrences of employees, as we suggest for the Regency Effect. As we mentioned earlier, the GCA system offers the “Manager Diary” for incident management and employee feedback to solve performance management failing.



  1. Fatigue Error


This is one of the most common mistakes in performance management failing Appraisal and it happens when an appraiser has a large team or many people from other relationships (not just subordinates) to be appraised, as can happen in a 360º appraisal. When reaching the last collaborators after many evaluations answered, the answers become more automatic, less analytical and with lower quality. Serious problem that impacts the results of the professionals evaluated.


How to solve the Fatigue Error: you will find in the literature that the best way is to evaluate people little by little, but that will not solve performance management failing. Well, it may be that the evaluator is more humorous one day and more rigorous the next. The solution is to change the way the assessment is structured: instead of answering all questions about an individual, the evaluator answers the same question about all professionals evaluated in that indicator. Therefore, the evaluator has parameters to evaluate all people and properly balance the grades given. Thus, if a break is necessary, all the people pass through the same evaluation criteria of the indicators and the evaluator can later resume where he left off, without damage to the scores. In this new proposal, the evaluation must have the following structure:

  1. Similarity or Self-Identification Error Performance management failing


The appraiser is complacent with the appraisee with whom he most identifies and, in many cases, self-identification is not even professional, it involves personal issues, such as football teams, type of music, training, etc. No matter where there is affinity, the assessment must take place above this self-identification and consider professional issues related to the delivery of results on a daily basis.


How to resolve the Similarity or Self-Identification Error: One of the ways to reduce this condescension is to prepare the evaluator for the process. For this reason, more than once, in this article, we mention the importance of awareness-raising lectures . In addition, it is important to maintain a team capable of clarifying the doubts that arise during the process arising from the participants of the evaluation.



These are some of the most common mistakes in management failing Assessment, but not carrying them out and choosing a methodology without adherence to organizational reality are the worst of the problems. Walk the path of personalization, as no two companies are the same and, therefore, the evaluation form should not be the same either. Today, solutions are available to organizations of all sizes and there are no longer any excuses for not applying this indispensable tool for strategic performance management failing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 by - All rights reserved.