Why Good Employees Are Often Undervalued: 28 Psychological Biases in the Workplace!

 

The beginning of the story: Is the employee who talks the most the best employee?

There were three employees working in a dialysis center—Arup, Suman, and Vikas. Their work style, personalities, and skills were different.

Arup was confident. He could speak well in front of the manager. He would present his work details in meetings in such a way that everyone considered him a very efficient employee.

Suman was a completely different type of person. He talked less, was more busy with his work, and performed his duties regularly. He was very careful about patient records, dialysis-related documentation, following SOPs, and cooperating with colleagues. But he did not promote his work.

Vikas was also an experienced employee. However, the quality of his work had declined recently. Later, it was learned that due to staff shortages, he had to work extra shifts and the workload had increased.

One day, the center's manager started the annual Performance Appraisal.

Arup praised his work. Suman silently submitted his work records. And there were a few shortcomings in Vikas' report.

The manager initially considered Arup to be the best employee. He saw Suman as an ordinary employee and suspected Vikas of being irresponsible.

But one question remained—was the manager judging the actual performance, or was he relying on the ideas created by his own brain?

In psychology, some mental tendencies that affect human decisions are called Psychological Bias.

People do not always make decisions by analyzing every piece of information in depth. Many times, first impressions, personal preferences, recent events, acquaintances, or the opinions of others influence their judgment. These tendencies do not always lead to wrong decisions, but relying on them without sufficient evidence increases the risk of injustice.

Chapter 1: When the first impression becomes the final judgment

1. Halo Effect — Seeing a good trait makes the whole person feel good

The manager saw that Arup spoke fluent English, was confident and active in meetings. He assumed that Arup must be good in all areas.

But some of Arup's documentation was incomplete. He sometimes presented the work done by other employees as his own contribution.

Yet, because of his good presentation, the manager did not give enough importance to these shortcomings.

This is the Halo Effect. Seeing one positive trait of a person, one assumes that his other traits are also positive.

Learning in the workplace: Good communication skills are important, but they are not a substitute for quality of work, honesty or sense of responsibility. Each area must be evaluated separately.

2. Horn Effect — Seeing a bad trait makes the whole person feel bad

One day, Suman made a mistake in an important report. The manager got upset and thought that Suman might not be responsible.

After that, Suman completed many tasks well, but his previous mistake remained in the manager's eyes.

This is the Horn Effect. A negative event or trait affects the evaluation of the entire person.

Learning at work: A mistake, continuous negligence and deliberate dishonesty are not the same thing. It is important to examine the cause, importance, repetition and attempts to correct the mistake.

3. Primacy Effect — The effect of first impressions

Arup gave a good presentation in the first week of joining. After that incident, the manager formed a positive impression of him.

On the other hand, Suman was nervous on the first day and could not answer a question. The manager considered him relatively weak.

Although the difference in the actual work of the two became clear over time, the first impression continued to influence their evaluation.

Learning at work: Evaluate the employee's work at different stages of the probation period. Do not let the success or failure of the first day be the final decision.

4. Recency Effect — Giving more importance to recent events

Just before the appraisal, Arup completed an important task well. The manager praised him.

Suman did a good job all year, but he made a mistake the week before the appraisal. The manager gave more importance to that mistake.

As a result, recent events influenced the appraisal, rather than the performance of the entire year.

Workplace learning: Use monthly performance records, KPIs, work standards, and feedback. Don't base your decision on just the events of the past few days before the appraisal.

5. Spillover Effect — Previous year’s results affect current appraisal

The following year, Arup’s current performance was found to be lower than the previous year. Still, the manager wanted to give him a higher rating, remembering his previous successes.

On the other hand, even though Suman had overcome his weaknesses from the previous year, the manager could not completely get rid of his old ideas.

Learning at work: Make the work of the current appraisal period the main basis. Past performance may be relevant, but it is not a substitute for current work.

Chapter 2: When personal preferences affect professional decisions

6. Similarity Bias — Considering people like yourself more qualified

The manager and Arup were alumni of the same college. Their speech and experience were also similar.

When an important training opportunity came up, the manager gave Arup a go. However, Suman’s work record was also good enough for that opportunity.

Here, personal similarities influenced the evaluation of qualifications.

Learning: Use the same qualification criteria for training, promotion, and hiring.

7. Affinity Bias — preferring the one with whom you are more comfortable

Arup often had tea with the manager and talked about various topics. Suman would return to his duties after finishing work.

The manager felt more comfortable with Arup. Gradually, he developed a tendency to give Arup important responsibilities.

But having a good personal relationship and doing well professionally are not the same thing.

Lesson: Make the decision based on the evidence of his work and suitability for the position, not the relationship with the employee.

8. Leniency Effect — Giving everyone high marks

The manager did not want to displease the employees. So, despite the actual performance being different, he gave high ratings to almost everyone.

As a result, Suman's consistent good work was not recognized. At the same time, the shortcomings of those who needed to improve their performance were not made clear.

Lesson: Use pre-determined KPIs and rating criteria. Do not hide the real shortcomings so as not to hurt anyone.

9. Severity Effect — Judging Everyone Too Harshly

In another situation, a manager believed that if he always gave employees low marks, they would work harder.

As a result, employees who met their goals and employees who repeatedly left work incomplete received almost the same low marks.

Lesson: Just as excessive severity is unfair, so is giving unreasonable marks. There needs to be specific evidence to support each rating.

10. Central Tendency Effect — Giving Everyone Average Marks

Out of five employees in the center, one performs better than expected, two meet expectations, and two need to improve.

But the manager doesn’t want to give anyone a high or low mark. So he gives everyone a 3/5.

As a result, the extra contribution of good employees is denied and the need for improvement of weak employees is not clear.

Lesson: Create a clear definition of each level of the rating scale. Giving everyone the same mark is not fair.

11. Contrast Effect — Judging by comparing with others

After interviewing a very weak candidate, a mediocre candidate came. The second candidate seemed much better than the previous one.

But he was not tested enough to see if he fulfilled all the important skills of the position.

Lesson: In addition to comparing with other candidates or employees, judge everyone by specific criteria.

Chapter 3: When the manager assumes his own idea to be true

12. Attribution Bias — Misinterpreting the reason for behavior

One day Suman was late in submitting a report. The manager assumed that he was lazy.

But upon investigation, it was found that the necessary information from another department was late.

In other words, the reason for the delay was not only Suman's personal behavior; there were also problems in the work process.

Lesson: Before making a decision, verify the employee's statement, the work situation and relevant information.

13. Fundamental Attribution Error — Blaming the person more than the situation

The amount of development work had decreased. The manager considered him inefficient.

Later, it turned out that Vikas had to work extra shifts due to staffing shortages. His workload had increased and he had less time to rest.

Here, it was important to consider staffing, workload, and resource availability in addition to the individual's performance.

Lesson: Analyze the factors under the employee's control and the factors under the organization's control separately. Don't blame the individual without examining the situation.

14. Confirmation Bias — Finding evidence that supports your idea

Once the manager considered Suman a weak employee, he started noticing more of his mistakes. But Suman's timely completion of work, helping colleagues, and maintaining documentation were not given as much importance.

On the other hand, when Arup made a mistake, the manager thought that it might be a temporary problem.

Lesson: Find evidence that contradicts his idea. Consider both the positive and negative performance of each employee.

15. Stereotyping — Judging based on group beliefs

The manager believed that older employees cannot learn new software quickly. So training opportunities were mainly given to younger employees.

But an experienced employee would actually have both the interest and the ability to learn the software.

Education: Check the person's actual skills instead of age, language, gender, region or educational institution.

16. Self-Serving Bias — Credit for success, blame for failure

When the center's monthly goal was met, the manager said that the success was due to his plan.

When the goal was not met the next month, he said that the employees did not work hard enough.

This did not properly assess the team's contribution and process problems.

Education: Acknowledge the contribution of the employees involved in the success. Analyze the reasons for the failure and determine responsibility and a plan for correction.

Chapter 4: Team Pressure, Popularity and the Effect of First Information

17. Authority Bias — Overemphasizing Rank

One day, a senior manager approved a staffing plan that was smaller than the actual number of employees needed.

A few employees understood the problem but did not speak up for fear of their rank.

As a result, an important operational risk was not discussed in a timely manner.

Lesson: Make decisions based on facts and logic, not rank. Give employees the opportunity to voice their concerns safely.

18. Groupthink — Avoiding dissent to maintain team unity

In a meeting, everyone supported a new scheduling system. No one discussed workload or potential operational issues.

Everyone agreed that the decision was a good one.

Lesson: Discuss the risks, alternatives, and potential failures before making a decision. Don’t take dissent as a personal affront.

19. Bandwagon Effect — Doing it yourself because others are doing it

A few other departments were using a new recruitment test. So our center’s HR department adopted it without testing its effectiveness.

But there is no guarantee that a method that works in another organization will produce the same results in your organization.

Lesson: Learn from the experiences of others, but make decisions based on your organization’s needs, costs, and outcomes.

20. Anchoring Effect — Overly relying on the first information you get

A candidate was earning ₹60,000 per month in his previous job. HR thought his skills must be very good.

But the skills, work samples and ability to perform the responsibilities required for the current position were not sufficiently tested.

Education: Don't make previous salary or first rating the final criteria. Check the suitability for the current position separately.

21. Availability Heuristic — Making decisions based on easily remembered events

A new employee left the job last month. HR thought that the retention of new employees was very poor.

But the data was not analyzed to see how many new employees had joined, how many had left, and why in the past year.

Lesson: Analyze sufficient information without judging the situation of the entire organization with a memorable event.

Chapter 5: The Effect of Fear and Expectations of Change

22. Status Quo Bias — Retaining the Old System

The center’s old shift roster was constantly putting extra pressure on some employees.

Testing the new roster could have improved the work balance. Still, the manager said, “It’s been this way for a long time.”

Lesson: Measure whether the old system is effective. If necessary, test the new method on a small scale.

23. Sunk Cost Fallacy — Continuing to make bad decisions because of previous investments

The organization spent a lot of money on new HR software. But the software was slowing down the hiring process instead of speeding up the process.

However, management was reluctant to change it because it had already cost a lot of money.

Learning: Consider which option would be more effective in the future. Don’t continue to implement ineffective measures because of past costs.

24. Pygmalion Effect — Positive expectations can help improve

A new employee’s first few tasks were mediocre. But the manager didn’t dismiss him, but instead gave him training, clear goals, and regular feedback.

After a few months, the employee’s work quality improved.

Learning: Emphasize the employee’s potential to learn. However, positive expectations must be accompanied by training, appropriate resources, and measurable goals.

25. Golem Effect — Negative expectations can reduce opportunities for improvement

Another employee was thought by the manager to be a failure.

So he was not given important work and had little training. Gradually, the employee began to lose confidence.

Thus, low expectations and limited opportunities can hinder the employee’s improvement.

Learning: Distinguish between the employee’s current performance and learning ability. Provide opportunities for improvement and appropriate training.

Chapter 6: Observation, Confidence, and Interview Mistakes

26. Hawthorne Effect — Behavior changes during observation

During an audit, center employees completed checklists according to the rules and paid special attention to documentation.

But after the audit was completed, some of the previous irregularities were found again.

Doing well during observation does not mean that the same standards will be maintained in daily work.

Learning: Regular observation, long-term records, and process consistency are checked.

27. Dunning–Kruger Effect — Feeling overly competent despite limited skills

A new employee thought he was an expert in the entire process after little training. He did not want to receive feedback and ignored the warnings of his colleagues.

As a result, his work errors increased.

Learning: Evaluate confidence as well as practical assessments, work samples, and the ability to receive feedback. Being confident does not mean being incompetent.

28. Interviewer Bias — Interviewer's Personal Perceptions Affecting Hiring

The two candidates were almost equally qualified. The interviewer had similar hobbies and ways of talking to one of them. As a result, he gave that candidate a higher score.

The other candidate answered the relevant questions for the job well, but his evaluation was lower.

Lesson: Use structured interviews. Ask all candidates the same basic questions, have a specific scoring rubric, and if possible, have more than one trained interviewer evaluate him.

Chapter 7: An Important Lesson in the Dialysis Center

Let's go back to the story of Arup, Suman, and Bikash.

When the manager reviewed all the records together, the situation became clearer.

Arup's communication skills were good. But his lack of documentation and allegations of presenting others' work as his own needed to be verified.

Suman's quality of work was good. However, one of his mistakes needed to be properly reviewed. His mistakes cannot be ignored as a good employee.

Bikash's performance had decreased. But it would not be fair to call him irresponsible without verifying his workload and extra shifts.

Instead of personal opinions, the manager now considered work records, statements of relevant people, training needs, and operational situations.

This approach is especially important in healthcare settings. Because in patient safety-critical environments like dialysis, issues such as SOP adherence, infection control, documentation, equipment maintenance, and defined escalation processes are directly related to the quality of service.