When Managers’ Emotions Change Performance Appraisal

Marcela Peterson

In many performance appraisal systems, it is assumed that objective criteria are sufficient to ensure fairness. However, research shows that managers’ emotions and subjective judgments often carry more weight than is commonly acknowledged and, in some cases, directly influence ratings, rewards, and even employees’ future career prospects. One of the most significant findings in this area is that the quality of the relationship between leader and subordinate substantially alters how performance is perceived, regardless of what has actually been delivered.

When managers develop more affective connections or hold more favorable perceptions of certain employees, their evaluations tend to become more lenient. Proactive behavior, visible enthusiasm, and collaborative attitudes trigger feelings of liking and closeness, which can influence ratings even in the absence of clear differences in technical performance. Conversely, more distant relationships or those marked by communication difficulties often lead to harsher evaluations, even when the employee meets performance expectations with competence.

This effect becomes more pronounced when tasks are ambiguous or when performance is difficult to measure objectively. In the absence of clear indicators, human judgment tends to fill the gaps with subjective impressions, leading managers to rely more on relational cues than on actual results. As a consequence, two employees with equivalent performance levels may receive substantially different evaluations, not due to merit, but because of the emotional lens through which they are viewed.

This phenomenon has important implications for organizational justice. Employees who maintain smoother relationships with their managers are more likely to receive opportunities, recognition, and support, while others may be penalized for factors beyond their control. The risk lies in reinforcing a culture where actual performance becomes intertwined with personal preferences, negatively affecting morale, motivation, and career-related decisions.

Another critical point is that even when structured appraisal tools are used, bias is not entirely eliminated. The way managers interpret rating scales, assign weights, and justify scores continues to be shaped by individual perceptions. This highlights that robust systems are necessary but insufficient if they are not accompanied by proper training, frequent calibration, and review mechanisms.

Acknowledging this human component does not mean discrediting performance appraisal, but rather understanding it in its full complexity. Performance evaluation will never be a purely technical process—it is also relational, emotional, and interpretive.

Recognizing this reality creates space for better choices: preparing leaders to identify their biases, clarifying criteria, encouraging collective discussions about standards, and fostering a culture in which transparency is as important as performance.

By integrating this interdisciplinary perspective, HR professionals and leaders can transform performance appraisal into a fairer and more strategic tool—less vulnerable to momentary sympathies and more closely aligned with actual results. The goal is not to eliminate subjectivity, which is impossible, but to learn how to manage it with maturity.