5 Types of Biases in Feedback: How to Make Your Feedback More Balanced and Effective

Feedback is essential for growth and improvement in the workplace, but it’s also surprisingly easy to get wrong. Common biases, even unintentional ones, can distort the feedback we give, making it more about us than the recipient. Here are five of the most common biases in feedback and how you can avoid them.

1. The Idiosyncratic Rater Effect: “Projecting Our Own Skills”

The Idiosyncratic Rater Effect occurs when feedback reflects the giver’s own quirks, skill levels, or standards rather than the actual performance of the person being reviewed. For example, if a manager excels in a specific skill like data analysis, they may unconsciously hold others to a very high standard in that area—or the opposite, if they lack skill in it, they might be overly lenient.

How to avoid it: When giving feedback, consider if you’re evaluating based on your own strengths or weaknesses. Focus on the actions or growth areas for the team member, and seek input from multiple sources to get a more balanced view. Some organizations use 360-degree feedback for this reason, to capture diverse perspectives and counteract individual biases.

2. Fundamental Attribution Error: “Judging Actions vs. Intentions”

Fundamental Attribution Error is the tendency to judge others based on their actions (often negatively), while we tend to judge ourselves based on intentions (more favorably). For example, if a colleague is late, we might assume they’re careless or unprofessional, but if we’re late, we’re more likely to attribute it to factors outside our control.

How to avoid it: Before giving feedback, take a moment to consider the external factors that may have influenced the person’s actions. If possible, seek to understand the full context and approach the feedback as a dialogue rather than jumping to conclusions.

3. Halo Effect: “One Strength Becomes All-Strength”

The Halo Effect is the tendency to allow one positive trait to color our perception of someone’s entire performance. For instance, if someone is highly skilled at presentations, we may assume they’re equally skilled in other areas, even without direct evidence.

How to avoid it: When giving feedback, evaluate each area of performance independently. Don’t assume that strengths in one area automatically translate to others. If you’re unsure, ask for examples from colleagues or gather data that reflect multiple aspects of performance.

4. Horn Effect: “One Weakness Overshadows Everything”

The Horn Effect is the opposite of the Halo Effect—one negative trait or incident can overshadow a person’s other strengths. For instance, a single mistake might lead to ongoing negative perceptions, even if the individual consistently performs well otherwise.

How to avoid it: Be mindful of focusing too much on a single incident. To avoid this, review the person’s complete body of work and contributions. Make sure your feedback considers positive actions or achievements along with areas for improvement.

5. Recency Effect: “Judging Based on the Last Month”

The Recency Effect is the tendency to focus on recent events over past ones when giving feedback. It’s especially common in performance reviews, where feedback may be heavily weighted toward the past few months rather than the full evaluation period.

How to avoid it: Keep a record of ongoing achievements and contributions throughout the year. This can help ensure a more balanced evaluation and prevent the last few months from overshadowing earlier successes.

Workplace feedback shouldn’t feel like a reality show judging panel, but biases can make it feel just as random. By recognizing these biases—Idiosyncratic Rater Effect, Fundamental Attribution Error, Halo, Horn, and Recency Effects—you’ll make your feedback a little fairer and keep everyone from feeling like they’re auditioning for your approval.