Every review process carries rater bias: recency, halo and horns, leniency, central tendency, similarity. The question is how much your process lets it through. Answer 8 quick questions about how you run reviews and you'll get a bias risk score (Low, Medium or High) plus the top 3 fixes for your setup.
How it works: it runs entirely in your browser. Nothing is stored or sent anywhere. The score is a simple checklist score based on your answers. It is not a benchmark and doesn't compare you with other companies.
The biases this checks
- Recency: the last few weeks outweigh the whole period.
- Halo and horns: one strong trait (good or bad) colours every rating.
- Leniency and central tendency: everyone ends up "above expectations", or everyone sits in the middle.
- Similarity: raters favour people who are like them.
- Process gaps that let these through: no calibration, no evidence or goals, a single rater and a once-a-year cycle.
Research: a well-known study found that a large share of the variance in performance ratings reflects the rater rather than the person rated (Scullen, Mount & Goff, 2000, Journal of Applied Psychology, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.956).
FAQ
Is my data stored?
No. The checker runs in your browser and nothing you select is saved or sent anywhere. The share link only carries your risk level.
How is the score calculated?
Each answer adds 0 to 2 risk points across 8 areas, for a maximum of 16. 0 to 5 is Low, 6 to 10 is Medium and 11 to 16 is High. It's a checklist score, not a statistical benchmark.
What should I fix first?
Start with the three fixes shown with your result. They are the areas where your answers add the most risk. The calibration meeting guide and the review-cycle checklist cover most of them.
Next step
See what your review cycle costs, or talk your result through with me in 15 minutes.
More: People Performance Playbook home · framework · HRIS switch checker · blog.