Three consecutive quarters of exceeding targets. A string of successful client engagements. A perfect record of on-time delivery. Are these signs of exceptional performance or partially the result of random chance?
How Performance Evaluations Ignore Randomness
Performance evaluation systems rarely account for randomness, leading to flawed judgments about individual contributions. Consider these blind spots:
Recency bias: Overweighting recent performance (which may be randomly good or bad)
Small sample sizes: Drawing conclusions from too few observations
Comparing outcomes rather than decisions: Judging based on results that may include luck
Attribution errors: Assuming success comes from skill and failure from incompetence
Small heading 1
Normal text.
Smarter Approaches to Evaluation
Smarter evaluation approaches:
Balance process quality with outcome trends over multiple cycles
Extend timeframes while providing interim feedback on decision quality
Distinguish controllable factors from environmental randomness
Use multiple evaluators and consider market context
Remember that Wall Street still compensates fund managers who can't consistently beat index funds. Why? Because separating skill from luck is inherently difficult, especially with delayed feedback.
The Core Challenge of Fair Evaluation
The challenge: A project manager's process might be exemplary, but if they miss targets due to uncontrollable factors, how do we balance process against results? The answer is understanding which randomness signals important environmental shifts versus pure chance.
The biggest evaluation pitfall? Assuming performance is entirely deterministic and that outcomes directly reflect capability without considering external factors.
