DIRECTIVE 110 / FEEDBACK

RATE FROM MEMORY

Use your general impression. Call it a year of evidence.

Complete annual reviews from memory and whatever examples come to mind first. Give prominent recent incidents more weight than months of ordinary strong work. When employees dispute a rating, explain that an experienced manager must assess the whole person.

THE MECHANISM

Performance evaluations distorted by recall bias and undocumented impressions.

Primary: FEEDBACKFAIRNESSPOWER
RATIONALE
Memory-based judgment is faster than maintaining a disciplined evidence system and preserves managerial discretion.
SUCCESS INDICATOR
Ratings feel internally consistent even when employees struggle to connect them to specific work.
COMMON FAILURE
Using multiple relevant observations, structured criteria and evidence sources while recognizing that performance ratings contain substantial rater-specific variance.
THE UNFORTUNATE PART

Evidence, with limitations.

Claim

Performance ratings contain large rater-specific components in addition to target performance information; who provides the rating can materially influence the score.

Evidence

Research decomposing multisource performance ratings found substantial idiosyncratic rater variance, challenging the assumption that a rating is a direct readout of a stable underlying performance trait.

Scientific boundary: Rater-specific variance in performance evaluations does not imply all managers rate from memory or that all ratings lack valid signal.

Sources

These references offer context, not a completed review or a test of this instruction.