Webster Industries Case

Webster Industries is proud of its good employee relations. However, this paternalism hinders rational decision-making. Not only does it influence decision-makers, it also causes performance evaluation tools to contain decision-making biases.

The Performance Description Questionnaire (‘PDQ’) is constructed in such a way that the reviewer is framed in his/her answering. The sample consists out of negatively phrased questions (i.e. Gives poor presentations) that may lead the reviewer to rate the overall performance of the employee worse. Secondly, the reliability of the questionnaire may be influenced by availability. The reviewer may be biased due to the retrievability of the behaviour of the employee. This can influence the results according to the relationship in question. Subjective priming can also affect the outcome of the PDQ. Thirdly, the representativeness heuristic may induce the reviewer to associate a nice personality with strong job performance, possibly ignoring the applicable base rates. Finally, the PDQ, as part of the Performance Appraisal System (‘PAS’), has a usage rate of only 29%. This rate is too insignificant to give the system any weight in the decision making process.

The Performance Profile (‘Profile’) may cause framing bias. The way reviewers value performance varies and losses generally have more impact than gains. This bias therefore leads to a subjective and possible unrealistic representation of skills. Additionally, being categorised as ‘well balanced dimensionally’ does not relate to the strength of the individual’s profile. It does serve as a (positive) anchor that may be hard to derogate from, even though the profile is not meant to compare individuals.

The input of the Personnel Audit is doubted because of the evaluative and counselling conflict. Whether or not this performance data is used, it serves as an anchor for the employee in question. Moreover, the phrase ‘change of status’ implies that a change is necessary....