Most people are very kind, generous and appreciative when I tell then I am a member of the
United States Air Force. I for the most part find it an honorable profession and I love what I do as a
search and rescue paramedic. Having said all that, the military is not without its problems. From an
OB perspective the military tends wo struggle with some of the same issues civilian organizations
and businesses have. A specific issue pointed out in the course material is something called the
“doghouse effect,”. The coin termed in the course material is the “halo effect.”
This phenomenon occurs when an individual is viewed and defined by a single positive
character trait. This obviously presents many problems not only for the individual, but for the
organization as well. The question is whether this is a fair and equitable practice, the obvious
answer must be no. One cannot be defined or understood simply by a single trait, good or bad.
This is also a major problem because it has a negative impact on how a person is evaluated. The
tendency to see an individual in such a narrow way often happens unintentionally as a result of not
being aware of the biases we possess. Also, to be considered is the disparity effect bias which
describes how we incorrectly judge someone based on how that person may relate to another
individual we encounter that might be higher or lower as it relates to that positive character trait.
[ CITATION Fis12 \l 1033 ]
The Air Force uses something called an Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for enlisted
members and an Officer Performance Report (OPR) for commissioned officers. These reports are
regularly used to determine such things as an individual’s readiness for promotion or even if that
induvial will be allowed to remain in the military. These reports are done on an annual basis and
tend to have a high level of subjectivity with the supervisor verbalizing in bullet format, how well
the member has performed their assigned duties.
The ratings go from 1 to 5, 5 being the top percentage of performers, with 1 being a referral
and grounds for possible discharge from military service. These reports have varied levels of stigma
with no way for the member to refute what is a finalized report. The expectation tends to be that
everyone will perform at a high level even though we understand this is not based on reality. A
person that receives recognition can be perceived as a “high performer”, as a direct result often
positive experiences will occur such as good reports, awards and decorations and the perception the
induvial is bright, hardworking and deserving of accolades. Although these reports are sone on an
annual basis, the reports stay as a part of your permanent record for the duration of your military
career.
Very often, when an induvial is being considered for advancement or career opportunities,
the past three years of performance reports will be reviewed. I have personally seen this bias at play
in my career. I have been lauded and given advantages that others haven’t based on the perception, I
was am a top performer. The reality has been with me and often with others, we are in the right
place at the right time with the right people. The suggestion is not that I don’t work hard, or that I
haven’t strived to earn every privilege. The assertion is that when we are unaware of our biases they
can and do have significant impacts on people and organizations.
I have personally been in situations where at one point in my career I was consider a high
performer, only later to have my performance be viewed as sub-standard having a probationary
period to adjust. My performance had been consistent in my opinion, during that time I had a
change in supervision, and we did not see eye-to-eye. I was in, for a period of time what was
previously referred to as the “doghouse”. In fact, I have found in my own experiences, it can be
very difficult for those finding themselves in this situation to recover.
A blemish on one’s performance real or perceived can have negative consequences for a
long period of time.
I have witnessed individuals that felt as though they couldn’t recover and as a direct result
resigned from military service. Too often new supervisors are briefed with the same information
and they carry those biases forward. This is only one side, the other side is the fact, there are
individuals that perform at a sub-standard level. Those individuals if under the halo effect may
perform at a sub-par level and still be viewed with deference above others due to this phenomenon.
The Bible speaks clearly on how we are to judge one-another if at all. “For in the way you judge,
you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:2
ESV).
Although most of us understand we should not allow one or even a few missteps or mistakes
to define a person, we fall victim to our own inability to recognize what biases we have and how to
address them.
Most of us as aware as its mentioned in the course material, “Faulty perceptions about
performance can lead to inaccurate performance appraisals, which erode morale” [ CITATION
Kin18 \l 1033 ]. Morale is a very important subject in the military, as the goal of every military
member is to be ready to defend our nation. One can’t go into conflict that could result in harm or
ultimately the demise of a military member carrying such baggage as feelings of inadequacy. These
feelings can lead to psychological issues which can hamper the ability to make good rational
decisions for yourself and others.
Evaluations can be very difficult to complete in an unbiased and fair way. I believe that
most military leaders want to perform this essential task in a way that’s fair and equitable,
This can be difficult and almost impossible if we are not able to self-reflect and understand how
biases such as the halo effect of doghouse impact the outcomes. “companies can “reduce bias by
providing managers a mechanism for accurately recalling employee behavior, such as a
performance diary” [ CITATION Kin18 \l 1033 ].
Factual and unbiased information that could be maintained in such things as performance
diaries would allow an employer to have more of an objective and comprehensive view regarding
employee performance. The U.S Air Force uses a tool called Airman Comprehensive Assessment or
ACA. This is a very structured tool that allows for little to no subjective information. The standards
for conduct and performance are clearly delineated on the form and the supervisor must sit down
with his or her subordinate and cover each area. While the supervisor has the final say, the
subordinate has an opportunity for input and to give pertinent information or dispute information
they feel may not be valid. The ACA is required as a minimum quarterly, but the subordinate may
ask for one at any time throughout the period of supervision.
One of the primary goals of the ACA is to ensure subordinates get timely and consistent
feedback. The quarterly ACAs should be reflected in the annual report and the overall rating should
not be a surprise to the subordinate. It’s hardly a perfect system but it is an improvement over past
rating system.
Leaders in all areas need to understand the importance of minimizing or eliminating biases.
One way of doing this is mentioned in the course material as methods of reducing bias.
Casual attributions are assigned through focusing on the three dimensions of behavior
mentioned in the book “three dimensions of behavior: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency”
[ CITATION Kin18 \l 1033 ]. Bias is often unfair and based on perceptions rather than factual
objective information. This tends to be more a leadership matter than that of employee
performance. These matters must be identified and dealt with continuously.
Employee performance results should not be based upon the halo effect or leadership bias
that puts the employee in the doghouse. As Christians we have a higher moral obligation to follow
the teachings from scripture.
The premise for leadership sometimes assumes subordinates are lacking ethical or moral
directions without guidance. The assumption can be that they need direction or care by leaders that
should be morally superior. “affective leadership advocates a profoundly political version of ethics,
which involves people in the pursuit of joyful encounters that augment our capacity to affect and be
affected by others.” (Munro & Thanem 2017).
Instead of being led by people in leadership positions, we are led by active affections that
enhance our capacity for moral action. We must discern and use judgment that is prayerfully and
spiritually guided. Each decision and action we take as leaders has consequences not only for those
that may serve with us in a subordinate position, but for us as believers.
References
Fischer, K. (2012, 19 December) Lesson 2: Individual Behavior In The Organizational. Liberty
University.
Kinicki, A., & Fugate, M. (2018). Organizational Behavior: A Practical, Problem-Solving
Approach, Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Munro, I, Thanem, T. (2017, 21 November). The Ethics of Affective Leadership: Organizing Good
Encounters Without Leaders Retrieved from
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/ethics-of-
affective-leadership-organizing-good-encounters-without-
leaders/F404DCD1EDEB2C55C1834DB511E7DE00
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
