What can supervisors risk by using a traditional evaluation approach?

Using a traditional evaluation approach can lead supervisors to give unbalanced evaluations, which may not accurately reflect an employee's performance or contributions. Traditional evaluation methods often rely heavily on subjective metrics and can be influenced by bias, personal relationships, or a lack of comprehensive data. This can result in overemphasizing certain traits or behaviors while undervaluing others, leading to feedback that does not represent the full scope of an employee's capabilities or achievements.

When evaluations are unbalanced, it can create issues of fairness and morale in the workplace. Employees may feel undervalued or discouraged if they perceive that their strengths are not being recognized, or if they see colleagues receiving inflated assessments. This could also damage the supervisor's credibility and trustworthiness, further complicating the supervisor-employee relationship.

In contrast, accurate assessments, supportive workplaces, and building trust with employees are all positive outcomes that supervisors aim for, but these outcomes are compromised when traditional methods lead to unbalanced evaluations. Therefore, recognizing the risks associated with traditional evaluation methods is critical for fostering an effective evaluation process.