What do you do if logical reasoning is lacking in performance evaluations and feedback sessions?

Understanding Bias: Educating evaluators on common biases and how to avoid them. Objective Metrics: Emphasizing the use of specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) criteria. Behavioral Examples: Teaching the importance of citing specific instances of behavior that demonstrate the employee’s performance related to their goals and job responsibilities.

Calibration is the activity of comparing the evaluations, ratings, and feedback among each other and making adjustments to those that show a general trend of standing out. When all evaluations for a team are higher than for the other teams, then it's likely that the person rating the team has a different expectation baseline. Then it makes sense to adjust these ratings accordingly to fit the overall baseline while keeping the 'relationship' (or ranking) of these ratings intact.

It is of special importance to educate those who are giving evaluation feedback on what the ratings stand for, how to differentiate, and how to not fall for biases. And then it is helpful to give them practical tips and tools, e.g. a ranking template, or a logical review (with formulas, for example) of their ratings to show if something seems off.

Offer training and resources to managers and supervisors on how to conduct performance evaluations effectively. This training should include guidance on using logical reasoning and evidence-based assessment methods to evaluate employee performance. Develop clear and objective criteria for evaluating performance, such as specific goals, key performance indicators (KPIs) and behavioral competencies. This provides a framework for assessing performance that is based on concrete evidence rather than subjective impressions.

I would review and possibly redesign our evaluation tools to ensure they encourage logical reasoning: Structured Formats: Implementing more structured formats that include checklists or scoring systems based on predefined criteria. Behavioral Anchored Rating Scales (BARS): Using BARS to provide clear examples of what behaviors correspond to different levels of performance.

Foster open and honest communication between managers and employees during feedback sessions. Encourage employees to provide their own perspective on their performance and engage in constructive dialogue with their managers. Offer training to employees on how to give and receive feedback effectively. This can help employees understand the importance of logical reasoning in feedback sessions and how to advocate for themselves based on objective evidence.

Promoting a culture that values continuous feedback can help mitigate issues at formal evaluations: Regular Check-Ins: Encouraging managers to hold regular one-on-one meetings with their team members to discuss progress, provide coaching, and address issues in real-time. 360-Degree Feedback: Incorporating feedback from peers, subordinates, and supervisors to provide a comprehensive view of an employee’s performance.

Implementing a system to monitor the quality of evaluations and gather feedback on the evaluation process itself: Evaluator Feedback: Soliciting feedback from employees on how logical and fair they found their evaluations. Audit and Review: Regularly auditing performance evaluations to ensure they adhere to logical and objective standards set by the hotel.

Encourage managers to base their evaluations on data and metrics whenever possible. This might include performance metrics, productivity statistics, customer feedback or other quantitative measures of success. Implement a process for reviewing and calibrating performance evaluations to ensure consistency and fairness across the organization. This might involve having multiple managers independently evaluate the same employee and then comparing results to identify discrepancies. Demonstrate the importance of using objective criteria and logical analysis to evaluate performance and make informed decisions.

For performance evaluations, we typically expect a bell curve distribution of below-just right-above expectations. While this is statistically true, I have seen teams with a higher ratio of over- or underperformers. It is not wise to make these teams fit the bell curve distribution at all costs. It's important to trust managers to evaluate their teams well, given they are well-trained in how they do so. And then have mechanisms in place to cross-check their evaluations, like peer feedback, self-evaluation, or second opinion. Since we are working with humans, there will always be exceptions to the norm.