Graduate case analysis
When Overtime Shapes Performance Ratings
- Performance Management
Why employees who worked overtime earned higher ratings despite similar performance, and how manager training and calibration can tie ratings back to observable work.
The question
In the Tech Solutions case, employees who worked overtime received higher ratings even when their core performance was similar. What evidence should managers use to evaluate work quality and collaboration?
What the analysis found
Three well-documented rater biases explain how availability can stand in for performance.
Halo effect
A willingness to take on extra work colors judgments of areas where an employee’s skills are actually weaker.
Selective leniency
Ratings run generous for employees who work overtime, and the audit shows the pattern reaches beyond any one pair.
Contrast effect
One employee’s availability becomes the benchmark, so a colleague can meet collaboration standards and still rate lower.
Work sample
One manager practice exercise puts two scenarios side by side: an employee who completes skilled work during scheduled hours, and one who stays late but often needs corrections. Managers rate both against shared standards and explain the evidence behind each rating. In calibration meetings, HR then asks managers to back up every rating with specific examples from the review period.
Adapted from the manager practice and calibration recommendations on page 5 of the Tech Solutions case analysis.
Recommendation or status
A follow-up audit would test whether ratings still track overtime among employees with similar responsibilities and core performance.