Manipulating the employee evaluation system to favor specific employees or impose unfair penalties is unethical and violates the principle of workplace fairness. It will seriously damage the team atmosphere and organizational culture, harm the interests of employees and organizational development, and should not be adopted. But in order to let you understand the possible undesirable phenomena and awareness of prevention, the following are some common examples of undesirable methods： ### Favor specific employees 1. **Highly rated** -**Exaggerate work results**: Evaluators deliberately exaggerate the work performance of specific employees when writing comments. For example, the employee actually only completed an ordinary project task on time, but the evaluation described it as “excellent leadership of the team to overcome many difficulties and innovatively complete the project, far exceeding the expected goals.” -**Ignoring errors and deficiencies**: Avoid talking about mistakes or problems in the employee's work, even if there are obviously some small errors that affect work efficiency or quality, they are not mentioned in the evaluation, only emphasizing their advantages. 2. **Set unreasonable evaluation criteria** -**Tailor-made standards**: Develop evaluation standards that are beneficial to specific employees. For example, when the team generally evaluates conventional indicators such as project delivery on time and quality standards, some vague and subjective “innovation contribution” indicators are set up separately for the employee, and the evaluator interprets these indicators at will and judges them with high scores when scoring, making them stand out in the evaluation. -**Reduce requirements**: Secretly reduce the work requirements for the employee. When the rest of the team needs to meet higher performance indicators, relax the standards for the employee, such as reducing workload and lowering quality standards, but they are measured by normal standards in the evaluation, showing that their performance is excellent. 3. **Manipulate the evaluation process** -**Disclose information in advance**: Evaluators disclose the evaluation content or standards to specific employees in advance, so that they can prepare in a targeted manner. For example, before the formal evaluation, quietly tell the employee what aspects the evaluation will focus on, so that they can deliberately perform in the follow-up work to get praise. -**Interfere with other evaluators**: Influence the evaluation of other evaluators in various ways. For example, communicate privately with other evaluators, implicitly or explicitly give high scores to a particular employee; or guide the direction of discussion at a collective evaluation meeting, emphasize the advantages of the employee, and suppress unfavorable feedback. ### Impose unfair punishment 1. **Give a low evaluation** -**Distorting work performance**: Deliberately distorting the actual work situation of employees and describing good performance as poor. For example, an employee proactively solves a difficult problem at work, but is evaluated as “insufficient ability to deal with the problem, resulting in delayed solution of the problem.” -**One-sided emphasis on mistakes**: Overly amplify employees' small mistakes while ignoring their overall work performance and efforts. For example, an employee has completed most of the work in a large project very well, but only because of a little mistake in a certain detail, it is written in the evaluation as “the work attitude is not serious, and serious mistakes frequently occur.” 2. **Unreasonable association punishment** -**Unprovoked association of negative events**: Link negative events that have nothing to do with employee performance to evaluation. For example, the team experienced an overall decline in performance during a certain period of time. Even if the employee's personal work was not at fault, the evaluation blamed him for the decline in performance and gave a poor evaluation. -**Abuse of disciplinary action to affect evaluation**: In the absence of a sufficient and reasonable basis, disciplinary action is taken against employees and reflected in the evaluation, which seriously affects their evaluation results. For example, just because an employee has a small friction with a colleague, a warning is given and points are deducted significantly in the performance evaluation. 3. **Maliciously manipulate the timing of evaluation** -**Choose unfavorable period evaluation**: Deliberately evaluate employees when they encounter difficulties or are in a low period of work. At this time, employees may not be able to fully demonstrate their normal working ability and efforts, so as to give a lower evaluation. For example, when an employee comes back for evaluation after a period of sick leave, regardless of the situation that they are working hard to return to work after recovering from the illness. -**Delay positive evaluation**: For employees who perform well, unreasonably delay the time to give positive evaluation, so that they cannot get the recognition and rewards they deserve in a timely manner, and may not be treated fairly due to “dilution of impression” in subsequent evaluations; and for employees who want to punish, but in a timely manner.Make a negative evaluation.