Revisiting the Validity of Subjective Assessments

Summary

The traditional thinking by experts in the field has been that subjectivity does not belong in any kind of rigorous appraisal process because it lacks validity and it is not consistent from manager to manager, and from employee to employee. This has lead to a situation where many HR professionals tend to believe that we need to discourage subjective assessments at all costs – that the only valid performance evaluation is an “objective” one. However, this viewpoint is problematic for the reasons outlined in this article.

“Objective Assessments Only” Defies Reality

The idea that subjective assessments of performance are invalid is problematic because it defies reality in five main ways:

1) It is not possible to evaluate all results objectively anyway

Some kinds of work make it easy to evaluate performance because it can be independently verified. In other words, the performance can be tied to measurable standards. For example, did the employee produce X widgets an hour with an error rate of 1%, or not? Did the employee submit his monthly expenses accurately and on time, or not? Were quarterly objectives met, or not? (However, even here, there is room for interpretation because the reasons behind why or how they were not might be disputed).

However, there are very few jobs where a person’s performance can be measured in a totally objective way. And even when some of the job tasks fall into this category, some do not. For example, how does a manager evaluate, say, the quality and effectiveness of a presentation? Just because there is no way to evaluate and measure the result in a totally “objective” way, does not mean that he or she can’t, or doesn’t, evaluate it. In such cases, the manager simply substitutes his or her own experience, judgement, and knowledge of the desired outcome in order to determine more subjectively how successful it was.

This may lead to disagreements or it may not. However, if the manager can justify his or her opinion or conclusion in a way that causes other people to agree with it then the result, for all practical purposes, is just as valid as an objective evaluation would have been (had such an evaluation even existed). This is because it is still based on the facts as he or she interpreted them and could be explained in a way that others could agree with. In other words, the conclusion was not pulled from thin air.

2) Measurable standards are objective. Anything else is an just an illusion of objectivity

Some methods of appraisal that are considered objective, are actually not.

For example, the numbers in Ratings approaches (1 though 5 or whatever), the categories in Objectives approaches (e.g., “met” and “exceeded”), the descriptions in Competency approaches (e.g., “role model) represent only an illusion of objectivity since they are ultimately based upon managers’ subjective mental assessments anyway. For example, when a manager gives a rating, identifies a competency gap, or decides that an employee “did not meet” a given objective, or simply needs to improve in an area, on what is he basing this assessment if it is not on his opinion? And how do managers form conclusions if it is not by interpreting both objective and subjective data?

For a detailed explanation see Article #2: Formal Methods of Performance Appraisal

3) Who someone is cannot be separated from their results and performance.

Integral to successful performance are factors that simply cannot be measured "objectively" at all. These include such vague yet critical things like their personality and how they relate to other people. In other words, it is almost impossible to separate the results that someone gets from how they get them.

4) Subjectivity is already considered “ok” in some instances (but not in others).

Why is subjectivity only frowned upon when it involves communicating negative opinions, especially if these occur as part of a formal written performance appraisal?

For example, most organizations WOULD NOT have a problem with a manager telling an employee, “You are real manager material because you are so politically astute and people really like you.” The manager may not even be required to back up this comment "objectively" regardless of whether he or she said it informally or wrote it on a formal performance appraisal form.

HOWEVER, the same organization probably WOULD have a problem with a manager telling an employee, “You are not cut out to be a manager because you are so politically naïve and people don’t like you” if he or she couldn’t back up the viewpoint “objectively”. It would definitely require the manager to justify that opinion if it appeared on a formal appraisal form.

Since the thought process that leads to a positive conclusion about performance is the same as it is to form a negative one, both positive and negative opinions should be subject to the same requirements in order to be considered valid. However, they are not. Since a manager’s positive conclusions about an employee’s performance do not seem to require the same level of rigour to support them as their negative conclusions do it begs the question, “Why the double standard?”

For a detailed explanation see Article #3: How Managers Naturally Assess Performance

5) Subjective assessments are already widely used and trusted.

When it comes to information that the employee will never necessarily hear, and regardless of any rhetoric to the contrary, positive and negative conclusions and perceptions (that combine both objective data and subjective information) carry more weight than any formal appraisal ever does anyway.

Managers perceive subjective assessments that they communicate confidentially between themselves as the “real deal” because they trust each other’s perceptions as being valid. They realize that labels like, “not a team player” or “politically naive” or “know it all” are generally not pulled out of thin air (there is rarely smoke without fire). They also recognize that when the need to be politically correct is removed, that there will be more honesty. After all, what is a reference from an existing manager to a hiring manager if not  his or her subjective mental assessment of an employee’s "fit" for a new job?

In any event, the truth is that perception is reality. Therefore, if other people that “matter” either agree with a given manager’s perception about an employee, or can be convinced that it is true, then such perceptions will undoubtedly determine the outcome of the employee’s career – regardless of what his or her formal performance appraisal says.

Implications for Organizations

Human Resource professionals would probably agree that subjectivity is a significant part of the employee evaluation and appraisal process in their organizations, especially when managers make selection and promotion decisions. Most would also believe that this situation is only wrong when:

·  The employees themselves are not privy to the same information, and

·  The information cannot be validated in such a way that everyone would be able to understand and agree with.

In other words, far from being inappropriate, the ability of managers to effective communicate their conclusions by “talking” to their employees about their performance and potential is actually one of the benchmarks that distinguish great managers from mediocre ones. For example, mentoring, coaching, informal feedback, etc. all involve some element of subjectivity – and this is a big part of their value.

We trust managers to combine their subjective judgement with objective information to make decisions all the time. That is why we pay them the "big bucks!" If we can trust them to do this in every other facet of their job why do we assume that they can’t be trusted to do the same thing when assessing their employees’ performance and potential? It doesn’t make sense.

Yeah, but that's the problem!

HOWEVER, since the recommendation to avoid subjective assessments is a logical response to the real, widespread, and enduring problem of managers being unable to validate and explain their opinions in a way that everyone can understand, agree with, and accept, it is understandable that Human Resource professionals may be reticent to adopt them as legitimate.

THEREFORE, if they are to overcome this hurdle and legitimize subjectivity in employee evaluation, they have to ensure that managers CAN validate (and even legally defend if necessary) their opinions about employee performance to everyone’s satisfaction and be able to communicate them to the employee in an effective and successful way. 

What can we do about this problem? PAF Feedback training can legitimize both positive and negative “subjective” performance assessments regardless of whether they are communicated in an informal or formal way.