Have you ever faced the dilemma of whether to give honest feedback or play it safe during evaluations? At ESMT Berlin, researchers have taken a deep dive into this very topic, uncovering some intriguing strategies that individuals use when evaluating their peers, particularly in settings where these evaluations are open for all to see, like on Wikipedia.
What is Strategic Behaviour in Peer Evaluations?
Strategic behavior involves selecting whom to evaluate and what to say based on personal benefit rather than honest assessment. It’s like choosing your battles in a game where the stakes are the perceptions of your peers and, ultimately, your career progression.
Professor Linus Dahlander, alongside colleagues from Purdue University and INSEAD, analyzed peer evaluation patterns among Wikipedia members, where evaluations are transparent and form the basis for administrative roles.
Key Findings from the Research
The research highlights a tendency among members to participate more in peer evaluations when their own evaluation is impending. Interestingly, there’s a marked avoidance of giving critical feedback in situations where it could backfire or play a crucial role in the overall assessment.
Impact of Strategic Evaluations
This strategic selection and timing of feedback can lead to a lack of critical evaluations precisely when they might be most needed, potentially affecting the organization’s ability to foster genuine meritocracy.
Avoiding Negative Feedback
Members are cautious about providing negative feedback, especially if it might offend someone influential or if the outcome of the evaluation is pivotal. They tend to focus their criticisms on less active members or in cases where the outcome is already clear-cut.
Transparency: A Double-Edged Sword
While transparency in evaluations aims to increase accountability, it also provides a playbook for strategic behavior. Employees might manipulate these transparent systems to curry favor or avoid conflict, rather than fostering an honest assessment environment.
Recommendations for Organisations
To counteract strategic behaviors, organizations are advised to implement clear guidelines and training focused on the importance of objective and balanced evaluations.
Training for Objectivity
Organizations could benefit from investing in training programs that emphasize the importance of honest feedback and the skills needed to deliver it effectively.
Conclusion
As the study from ESMT Berlin shows, while transparency in peer evaluations can improve accountability, it also opens the door to strategic behavior that can undermine the effectiveness of these evaluations. Organizations must carefully design and monitor their evaluation processes to cultivate an environment of trust and fairness.