Episode 237 - The Hidden Bias in Performance Reviews

Summary

Some employees are especially good at adapting their behaviour and creating positive impressions, but does that mean they actually perform better? A new meta-analysis suggests self-monitoring predicts supervisor performance ratings more than objective performance outcomes. This episode explores how leaders can distinguish genuine contribution from the appearance of performance.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 237 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at a subtle bias that can influence performance reviews: confusing someone's ability to manage impressions with their actual performance.

Some people are naturally very good at reading a room. They notice what other people expect, adapt how they present themselves and adjust their behaviour to fit different situations. Psychologists call this self-monitoring.

High self-monitors are socially skilled. They recognise when to speak up, when to hold back and how to present their contribution in a way that resonates with different people. Those can all be useful capabilities at work.

For years, research has suggested that self-monitoring is also associated with job performance. But a new meta-analysis asks an interesting question: are high self-monitors actually performing better, or are they simply better at being seen as high performers?

The researchers analysed 35 samples and found a modest overall relationship between self-monitoring and job performance. But when they examined how performance was measured, they found that the relationship appeared when supervisors rated performance, but not when performance was assessed using more objective outcome measures. This indicates that at least part of the apparent performance advantage comes from influencing the person doing the rating rather than actual performance.

Most workplaces don't measure performance perfectly. Leaders form impressions based on conversations, meetings, presentations, emails and the things they happen to observe. Employees who are skilled at recognising what the manager values may naturally become more visible in those settings. Meanwhile, another employee may quietly produce excellent work without drawing much attention to it.

The danger is that we start treating visibility as performance. Someone who speaks confidently in meetings can appear more capable than someone whose contribution is less visible. Someone who regularly updates the