Performance Evaluations

Unless supervisors work in an industry in which each job function is perfectly quantifiable, they
will have to contend with subjective performance evaluations of their employees. Whenever
possible, emphasis should be placed on measurable responsibilities. Language used to
comment on a specific employees performance should be kept neutral and non-offensive.
Many performance evaluation templates will include general questions about productivity with
a Likert Scale point system to record the competence within that area of measure. Human
resource departments should take great care to ensure that the template is not discriminatory,
but that does not mean that supervisors do not need to exercise great care when completing
subordinates performance evaluations.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has identified protected classes, and
has instructed employers to have policies in place to protect individuals in these protected
classes from discrimination and harassment. The entire evaluation must be unbiased in order to
be valid. If even one comment is found on a performance evaluation that is discriminatory, a
method of correcting the problem can include expungement of negative evaluation(s) (Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 1999). An entire performance evaluation could be
discarded because of even one discriminatory comment.
A recent study by Emilio J. Castilla has supported the idea that outside influences on the
manager from his or her network as well as the influences of the managers peers have a
significant impact on employee performance assessments (2011, p. 687). One goal of this
training is to provide a peer network for supervisors to unite their efforts to avoid
discriminatory performance evaluation practices. Hopefully, this network will reduce the need
for a supervisor to rely on peers who may not have considered the need to eliminate any and
all discriminatory phrasing in their evaluations.
If a supervisor falls under a different demographic group than any of his or her employees,
there is likely to be a heightened scrutiny surrounding the performance evaluation. Research
had indicated that racial differences between subordinate and supervisor lead to lower ratings
for subordinates (Maas & Torres-Gonzalez, 2011, pp. 668-669). While many instances of this
may be unintentional by the supervisor, it is important to be cognizant of this tendency. This
should lead to supervisors intentionally avoiding biased performance reviews.
Supervisors should be sure to use succinct, matter-of-fact language for any comments on
performance evaluation. A good habit is for the supervisor to consider whether the comment

would need to be altered if it was used on the performance evaluation of an employee in a

different demographic group. If the comment is not universal, new phrasing should be
considered. Even if a comment is intended to be flattering, great care should be taken to
remove any suggestion of bias.
Examples:
1. Employee has a remarkable grasp on social media marketing that rivals her Millennial
counterparts.
The embellishment points out that this statement is potentially referring to an older employee.
Nothing beyond illustrating the employees social media marketing strength is necessary for her
performance evaluation. The comment could remove the bias by simply stating: Employee
excels in social media marketing.
2. Employee has missed too many days for an illness.
The supervisor would need to address the reason for this comment. Is the employee missing
work for a protected disability? Is the missed work protected under the Family Medical Leave
Act of 1993? If so, did the employee follow the correct notification procedures to miss work? If
the employee missed work and did not follow the notification protocol, that should be stated in
the comment instead.
3. Employee often fails to work overtime when it occurs during weekends due to religious
observation.
Workers are protected from discrimination due to their religious beliefs. Employees are entitled
to reasonable accommodation to observe their religious faith. A comment like this one implies
that the supervisor may not have offered alternative overtime options to prevent falling on the
employees Sabbath day.

Resources
Castilla, E. J. (2011). Bringing managers back in: Managerial influences on workplace inequality.
American Sociological Review, 75(5), 667-694. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.bsu.edu/stable/pdf/23019215.pdf
Maas, V.S. & Torres-Gonzalez, R. (2011). Subjective performance evaluation and gender
discrimination. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 667-681. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.bsu.edu/stable/pdf/41475926.pdf
U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1999). Enforcement guidance on vicarious
employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. (EEOC Publication No.
915.002). Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html