Self-assessment, when combined with moderation, is a powerful approach to evaluating employee skills, as it balances personal insight with objective validation. However, the process of moderating self-assessments is not without its challenges. Organisations often encounter issues related to bias, inconsistency, resistance, and the logistical complexity of the moderation process. Understanding these challenges and how to address them can help organisations ensure that self-assessment moderation is accurate, effective, and trusted by all parties involved.
This post offers a breakdown of the most common challenges and practical strategies for overcoming them.
Bias and Subjectivity in Self-Assessments
Challenge: Employees may unintentionally skew their self-assessment results due to various biases. Overconfidence, imposter syndrome, or social desirability bias can lead to assessments that are either too lenient or too harsh. This makes it difficult for moderators to gauge true skill levels accurately.
- Overestimation (Inflated Ratings): Employees may overestimate their competencies due to overconfidence or to present themselves in a more favourable light, especially if they feel it might influence career advancement.
- Underestimation (Deflated Ratings): Conversely, some employees might underrate their skills due to lack of confidence or fear of appearing arrogant. This is common among high-performing individuals who often set extremely exacting standards for themselves.
How to Address:
- Provide Clear Evaluation Criteria: Use a structured evaluation rubric with detailed definitions of skill levels (e.g. novice, proficient, expert) to ensure that employees understand how to rate themselves accurately.
- Offer Self-Assessment Training: Train employees on common biases in self-assessment and provide guidance on how to evaluate skills objectively. Use case studies and real-world examples to show what each skill level looks like in practice.
- Incorporate Peer Feedback: Include a 360-degree feedback process, where peers provide input alongside self-assessments. This creates a more holistic view of performance and mitigates the extremes of over- or under-rating.
Inconsistencies Across Moderators
Challenge: Different moderators (e.g. managers, team leaders, or peers) may interpret evaluation criteria differently, leading to inconsistencies in how self-assessments are validated. This inconsistency can undermine the credibility of the moderation process and create frustration among employees.
- Varying Standards: Different moderators may have varying expectations for what constitutes proficiency or expertise in a given skill.
- Subjective Adjustments: Moderators might adjust self-assessments based on personal perceptions or past interactions, rather than sticking to objective criteria.
How to Address:
- Use a Standardised Moderation Framework: Develop a detailed moderation guide that outlines specific criteria and expectations for each skill level. Include concrete examples to illustrate what each rating should look like.
- Conduct Calibration Sessions: Regularly hold calibration meetings where moderators review and discuss sample self-assessments together. This helps establish a common understanding of the evaluation criteria and reduces variability.
- Implement a Multi-Rater System: Use multiple moderators for high-stakes evaluations to ensure that biases or inconsistencies are minimised. Aggregate the ratings to produce a final, balanced score.
Lack of Trust and Transparency in the Process
Challenge: Employees may lack trust in the moderation process if it feels opaque or arbitrary. They might suspect that their self-assessment scores are being altered unfairly, leading to disengagement or a reluctance to participate honestly in future assessments.
- Unclear Adjustment Rationale: If moderators change self-assessment scores without clear justification, employees may feel that the process is unfair or lacks transparency.
- Limited Employee Involvement: When employees are not involved in the moderation process or cannot provide input, they may perceive it as top-down and unaligned with their own perceptions.
How to Address:
- Communicate the Moderation Process Clearly: Explain how moderation works, why it is necessary, and how it benefits both the employee and the organisation. Transparency helps build trust.
- Include Employees in Review Discussions: Where possible, involve employees in post-assessment review sessions to discuss any discrepancies between their self-assessment and the moderated score. This provides an opportunity for dialogue and clarity.
- Offer a Right to Respond: Allow employees to provide feedback or contest changes to their self-assessment if they feel the moderated score does not accurately reflect their capabilities.
Resistance from Employees and Managers
Challenge: Resistance can arise from both employees and managers who see self-assessment moderation as an unnecessary or overly complex process. Employees may view it as a potential risk, while managers may feel it adds to their workload without clear benefits.
- Employee Reluctance: Employees might resist participating due to fear of judgement or concerns that self-assessment could negatively impact their career progression.
- Managerial Overload: Moderation can be time-consuming, especially for managers who oversee large teams. This can lead to a lack of thoroughness in the review process.
How to Address:
- Position the Process as Developmental, Not Evaluative: Emphasise that self-assessment with moderation is a tool for growth and development, not just a performance evaluation. Highlight how it helps identify opportunities for targeted learning and career advancement.
- Simplify the Moderation Workflow: Use technology to streamline the moderation process, such as digital tools that flag significant discrepancies for review or automate parts of the moderation workflow.
- Acknowledge and Reward Engagement: Recognise and reward both employees and managers who actively engage in the process. This could be as simple as public recognition or as formal as incorporating it into performance goals.
Time Constraints and Logistical Complexities
Challenge: Moderation can be time-intensive, particularly in large organisations where hundreds or thousands of self-assessments need to be reviewed. This challenge is exacerbated if the process is manual or if there are multiple rounds of review.
- Time-Consuming Process: Managers may not have the time to thoroughly review each self-assessment, leading to rushed or incomplete moderation.
- Coordination Across Teams: For large or geographically dispersed teams, coordinating the moderation process can be logistically challenging.
How to Address:
- Prioritise Critical Skills for Moderation: Focus moderation efforts on high-impact skills or roles where precision is critical (e.g. leadership or strategic roles), while allowing lower-stakes skills to remain self-assessed.
- Leverage Technology for Automation: Use digital tools that can automate parts of the moderation process, such as flagging extreme ratings for review or providing suggested adjustments based on historical data.
- Stagger the Moderation Process: Instead of reviewing all self-assessments simultaneously, implement a rolling review system where assessments are moderated in phases. This reduces pressure on moderators and ensures more thoughtful evaluations.
Misalignment Between Self-Assessment and Organisational Standards
Challenge: Employees’ understanding of skill levels may not align with the organisation’s definitions or expectations. For example, what one employee considers “expertise” may not meet the organisation’s criteria for that skill level, leading to inflated or inconsistent ratings.
- Different Interpretations of Skills: Employees and moderators may have different interpretations of what specific skill levels entail (e.g. what constitutes “proficiency” vs. “expertise”).
- Vague Criteria: If the skill definitions or assessment rubrics are unclear, it can result in misalignment between self-assessments and organisational standards.
How to Address:
- Create Clear, Role-Specific Competency Frameworks: Develop detailed competency frameworks that define skill levels for each role. Include examples, behaviours, and outcomes expected at each level.
- Use Guided Self-Assessment Tools: Provide interactive self-assessment tools that include prompts, guiding questions, and examples to help employees understand and apply the criteria correctly.
- Provide Regular Training on Evaluation Standards: Conduct workshops or training sessions for employees and moderators to ensure a common understanding of skill levels and expectations.