You can use the following example in the design of a performance appraisal form.
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM – INSTRUCTIONS
It is very important that you carefully review the individual’s job description before you begin this appraisal. Evaluate the individual based on the job that he/she is now performing. Include specific examples and documentation. Keep in mind that the biases listed below can influence your evaluation. Avoid these biases. Be honest and forthright in your assessment. The time and care you give to this process will determine its value to the employee, your department and our organization as a whole.
Halo effect: Rating an employee excellent in one quality, which in turn influences the rater to give a similar rating or a higher than deserved rating on other qualities.
Horn effect: Raying an employee unsatisfactory in one quality, which in turn influences the rater to give a similar rating or a lower than deserved rating on other qualities.
Central tendency: Providing a rating of average or around the midpoint for all qualities. Since many employees do perform somewhere around the average, it is an easily rationalized escape from making a more meaningful appraisal.
Contrast: Comparing employee with one another or that employee with the last job incumbent instead of against the job description.
Strict/Severe Rating: Rating consistently lower than the expected norm or average; being constantly harsh in rating performance qualities.
Lenient Rating: Rating consistently higher than the expected norm or average; being overly generous in rating performance qualities.
Latest Behavior (Primacy/Recency): Rating influenced by the most recent behavior; failing to recognize the most commonly demonstrated behaviors during the entire period.
Bias: Rating being affected by one’s values; such as allowing one’s rating to be affected by the employee’s religion or ethnic group.
Stereotyping: Rating being affected by one’s impression of a group of which the employee is a member.
Initial Impressions: Rating based on first impressions; failing to recognize most consistently demonstrated behaviors during the entire appraisal period.
Spillover Effect: Allowing past performance appraisal ratings to unjustly influence current ratings.
Status Effect: Overrating employees in higher level jobs or jobs held in high esteem and underrating employees in lower-level jobs or jobs held in low esteem.
Same as me: Rating an employee higher than deserved because the person has qualities or characteristics disimilar to the rater (or similar to those held in high esteem).
Different from me: Rating an employee lower than deserved because the person has qualities or characteristics dissimilar to the rater (or similar to those held in low esteem).
Need to criticize: Since every employee can potentially improve performance, raters sometime focus on small or inconsequent issues and often offend the best producers. Critisims and suggestions for improvement must be relevant to job performance.