The practice of self-appraisal has long been a staple of performance management systems. Employees are asked to evaluate their own work, providing managers with supposedly valuable insights into their performance. However, this seemingly innocuous practice is often misguided and can lead to more harm than good.
At its core, self-appraisal creates a misleading notion of what performance evaluation is meant to accomplish. When employees are asked to fill out the same form used by their supervisors, it gives the impression that appraisals are a two-way exercise, where both sides share their perspectives and negotiate a common conclusion. But that’s not how performance reviews work. The appraisal is meant to reflect the manager’s assessment of the employee’s performance, not a collaborative debate.
This misperception has consequences. When both parties are confused about the purpose of the appraisal, it leads to further misunderstandings. Research shows that individuals are notoriously poor at judging their own performance. In fact, the worse someone’s performance is, the more likely they are to overrate themselves. Studies by a consulting firm have found no correlation between self-ratings and actual performance. The most accurate appraisals come from the employee’s immediate supervisor.
Research by Justin Kruger and David Dunning at Cornell University reinforces this point. Their study, “Unskilled and Unaware of It,” highlights a troubling phenomenon: incompetent performers often lack the ability to recognise their own shortcomings. They not only make poor choices but are also blind to the fact that they’re failing. As a result, they tend to overestimate their abilities, further complicating the appraisal process.
A real-world example comes from a senior executive who described his company’s experience with forced ranking. The top performers were worried about being perceived as average, the average performers feared being seen as underachievers, and the weakest performers were convinced they were among the best. This pattern of self-delusion is widespread.
An old BusinessWeek’s survey of middle managers found that 84 per cent of respondents believed they were in the top 10 per cent of performers in their company. Even more astounding, 97 per cent of executives believed the same. Such inflated self-assessments make the self-appraisal process not only inaccurate but also counterproductive.
If company policy mandates self-appraisals, managers need to be clear about their purpose. They should explain that the self-appraisal is simply one source of information for the supervisor to use—not the basis for negotiation or the final word on performance. It’s also essential to request these self-assessments before the official appraisal process begins, so they can serve as input, not the focal point of the discussion.
A better approach would be to ask employees to informally list their key accomplishments over the appraisal period. This doesn’t require a formal template or an exhaustive review of their weaknesses. The goal is simply to ensure that none of their achievements are overlooked. This approach strips away much of the anxiety surrounding the formal self-appraisal process and focuses the discussion on the positives, which can set a better tone for the review.
There is some merit in using self-assessments as a conversation starter. It allows managers to see how employees view their own performance, and it can lead to more open discussions. But this should always be framed as part of a larger dialogue, not as a means to shape the manager’s evaluation.
Ultimately, performance appraisals should be about more than looking back at what’s been done—they should be forward-looking, focusing on future goals and development. Engaging employees in this process can lead to more productive conversations, but managers should always be careful to manage expectations. Self-appraisals can sometimes lead employees to expect rewards—promotions or raises—that aren’t guaranteed simply because they’ve received a good review.
A key takeaway is that performance evaluations should never come as a surprise. Good managers maintain ongoing communication about performance throughout the year, so that there’s no confusion when appraisal season arrives. When feedback is regular, employees have a better understanding of where they stand, and there’s less room for the misunderstandings that self-appraisals tend to create.
While self-appraisals can serve as a useful tool in performance discussions, they often muddy the waters and can create false expectations. By reframing the process and emphasising continuous communication, managers can avoid many of the pitfalls associated with this outdated practice.
1 Comment
Nice article. Very interesting