Roles and Responsibilities for Evaluations

The specific instructions to complete forms (Performance Evaluation, Performance Program, etc.) are included with those forms. This section outlines general considerations in roles and responsibilities.

While the SUNY-Geneseo HR office will notify the supervisor about professional evaluation being due, it is the general responsibility of both supervisor and the professional staff member to ensure that the timeline for evaluation is followed. The supervisor must ensure that appropriate consultation is planned for before completion of forms (this includes an individual consultation with the professional staff member being reviewed). The professional staff member should request such a consultation if the supervisor does not request it. If the professional staff member is uncomfortable with this request, (s)he should solicit the assistance of university and union representatives.

It is also the general responsibility of all parties to provide comprehensive, factual, and objective assessments. Please see the section on “sources” of bias in ratings for additional information. 

Tools & Resources

In addition to ensuring that evaluation is based on a comprehensive view of the employee’s performance over the evaluation period, it is also advisable to refer to sources of information that have documented the employee’s contributions over the evaluation period. In providing the evaluation, comments and ratings should be pegged to the performance program for the employee. Any unanticipated changes in the job performance should be considered in providing the evaluation (e.g., the professional staff member might have been operating with an assistant for 3 months out of the year).

Sources of Bias

Supervisors should be alert to common sources of bias in rating the performance of the professional staff member. These include (but are not limited to):

• Leniency/Strictness/Central tendency: A personal tendency to provide ratings on the higher or lower or middle range of the rating scale.
• Halo Effect: A tendency to give employees higher ratings because of one or two tasks they may perform very well.
• Horns Effect: Reverse of “Halo” effect, in that employees receive poor ratings because of one or two tasks they performed poorly.
• Recency Effect: A recent task performance may color the overall rating.
• Contrast Effect: A tendency to evaluate an employee in contrast to another one (this may or may not work to the benefit of the staff member being evaluated).

In other cases, the supervisor may rate based on a personal connection to the staff member (e.g., similarity in interpersonal style) or any factor other than the performance program.

Avoiding Bias

Generally, it is good practice to understand the rating scale and define each point of the rating scale to oneself before providing a rating. It might also be beneficial to write the evaluative statement for each category before providing the rating in that category. Supervisors/Evaluators are also urged to talk to the staff member on a regular basis (e.g., quarterly) about their job performance, as opposed to only providing feedback at the end of the evaluation period.