In any organization, performance reviews play a crucial role in shaping career growth, employee morale, and overall productivity. However, the effectiveness of these reviews can be compromised by a common yet often overlooked issue: rater bias.
Rater bias occurs when personal opinions, assumptions, or prejudices affect the evaluation of an employee, leading to skewed performance assessments.
Whether it’s intentional or subconscious, bias can negatively impact the fairness of reviews, causing inaccuracies that affect both the employee’s development and the organization’s performance.
In this blog, we’ll explore what rater bias is, the various forms it can take, and how it can distort performance reviews. Understanding these biases is essential for ensuring that reviews are fair, accurate, and aligned with the true capabilities of employees.
Rater bias is defined as an error in judgment that can occur when a person allows their preformed biases to affect the evaluation of another. It is a common issue when it comes to performance reviews in organizations.
It can severely impact the effectiveness of a performance review as it can distort the ratings and result in inaccurate performance evaluations. It is a hazard to rating systems and cannot be truly eliminated.
There are many different kinds of rater bias in performance appraisal. The below list highlights the most commonly known ones that employees encounter during their performance review process.
Check out the below rater biases that can impact performance review and appraisal processes in an organization.
Leniency bias occurs when a manager gives overly positive ratings to an employee, often due to personal sympathy or reluctance to provide constructive criticism.
For example, a manager might give an employee consistently high ratings because they have a personal bond or out of fear that negative feedback could demotivate the employee.
This bias can lead to inflated performance appraisals, causing disengagement among other team members who feel their efforts go unnoticed, while the team’s overall productivity may decline due to unmerited praise.
Central tendency bias happens when raters avoid extreme judgments and give all employees average ratings, regardless of their actual performance.
For instance, a manager may rate all employees as “satisfactory” to avoid confrontation or making difficult decisions about individual performance.
This not only demoralizes high performers, who feel undervalued but also discourages underperformers from improving, as they receive no clear feedback about their shortcomings. Over time, this can diminish team performance and overall results.
Strictness bias occurs when a rater is overly harsh, giving consistently low ratings to employees, regardless of their true performance. A manager with this bias may focus excessively on small mistakes and overlook overall contributions, leading to lower ratings than deserved.
For example, an employee who achieves excellent results but makes minor errors may be rated poorly due to the manager’s critical nature. This can stifle creativity and discourage risk-taking, as employees fear harsh judgments for any mistake, leading to lower morale and innovation.
Contrast bias arises when an employee is evaluated in comparison to others rather than against a set standard.
For example, if a manager reviews a high-performing employee first, the next employee—who may be performing adequately—could receive a lower rating by comparison.
This bias distorts individual appraisals, as each employee is judged based on their peers’ performance rather than their own contributions, leading to unfair evaluations.
False attribution bias occurs when a manager assumes that an employee has full control over their successes or failures, ignoring external factors that may have influenced the outcome.
For instance, if a project fails due to external market conditions, a manager with this bias may unfairly blame the employee leading the project, without considering the circumstances.
This bias can lead to frustration and resentment among employees who feel their efforts are not evaluated within the right context.
The similar to me bias occurs when raters rate people more positively simply because the person being rated is similar in personality and behavior to the rater.
Managers are often inclined to employees whose personalities, work methodologies, and approaches are similar to them. Hence, they tend to end up providing inaccurate reviews of employees’ performance.
Personal biases, such as gender, race, religion, or political affiliation, can influence a manager’s ratings.
For example, a manager might rate male employees higher than female employees due to subconscious gender stereotypes.
These biases are particularly harmful because they have no bearing on an employee’s actual performance and can create a toxic work environment, leading to legal and ethical issues for the organization.
The halo effect occurs when a manager lets one positive trait overshadow all other aspects of an employee’s performance.
For example, an employee who consistently meets deadlines may receive high ratings in all areas, even if their teamwork skills are lacking.
Conversely, the horns effect happens when a single negative trait dominates the evaluation, such as an employee who makes a single high-profile mistake but is otherwise a strong performer.
Both halo and horns effects hamper the fundamentals of a performance review process. By focusing on only the good and the bad, raters tend to miss out on important aspects of employees’ performance.
Rater bias can skew performance reviews either negatively or positively regardless of an employee’s actual performance. And while an employee can control how they perform their job, they have no control over the rater’s bias.
It has been shown that the vaguer the questions in a performance review, the easier it is for raters to let their biases influence them. When raters have to answer specific questions, that are rooted in competencies or numbers, they are able to give answers that are relatively free of bias.
To learn more about actionable strategies for preventing rater bias, read this comprehensive blog here.
As mentioned earlier, rater bias is inevitable but can be managed. Raters can be trained to approach performance reviews with greater self-awareness, questioning whether their judgments are influenced by bias and if the ratings truly reflect the employee’s performance.
Eliminating unconscious bias is a gradual process that requires patience and effort. However, this doesn’t mean fair evaluations are out of reach.
With proper training, open discussions, and structured review systems, employers can significantly reduce bias and foster a more objective, equitable performance review process.
If you’d like to explore how rater bias can specifically damage performance reviews and what can be done to mitigate it, read this insightful article here.
Ans. Understanding rater bias is important for accurate employee evaluations. Rater bias includes halo bias, where a rater gives overly positive ratings based on strong performance; horns bias, where a rater gives overly negative ratings based on poor performance; and primacy bias, where a rater forms an opinion early in the evaluation process.
Ans. Rater bias can affect the validity and reliability of assessments, evaluations, and research studies. It can also lead to unfairness and discrimination in decision-making processes, particularly in areas such as hiring, promotion, and academic grading.
Ans. Some common types of rater bias include leniency bias (overrating performance), strictness bias (underrating performance), central tendency bias (rating most individuals as average), halo effect (generalizing positive or negative impressions across different aspects of performance), and recency bias (focusing on recent performance rather than overall performance).
Ans. There are several strategies that can help reduce rater bias, such as providing clear and objective criteria for evaluation, training raters on these criteria, using multiple raters to reduce the impact of individual biases, monitoring and reviewing rater performance, and using anonymous evaluations to reduce the impact of personal biases.
© 2025 Engagedly. All rights reserved.
