By Tara Roberson-Moore, PhD
We are constantly asked to rate things. Whether it is an Uber ride, an Amazon purchase, or a Netflix show, ratings have become part of everyday life. But this constant demand to evaluate isn’t limited to consumer interactions; it is quietly reshaping how people approach performance reviews in the workplace.
The result? A growing problem known as rating fatigue. Yes, rating fatigue is a thing. And it is undermining the very purpose of performance management.
What is rating fatigue?
Rating fatigue happens when people become mentally or emotionally drained during repetitive evaluation tasks. It leads to:
- Reduced attention and accuracy
- Overuse of safe or extreme ratings
- Vague, generic feedback
- Inconsistent scoring across employees
In performance reviews, both managers and employees experience the fatigue; it just shows up in different ways.
The manager’s experience
Most people leaders know exactly what’s coming. You stare at a long list of direct reports, trying to fairly and thoughtfully evaluate each one. But as the reviews drag on, fatigue sets in. This sets off a whole list of predictable patterns:
Leniency or severity drift
You start off strong, but as you push through several reviews, you just want to get finished, so you start to default to easy high scores, or you overcorrect and become stricter (Omni, 2023).
Central tendency bias
The safest middle-ground rating (“3” out of “5”) becomes the default as cognitive energy dwindles. You start “checking the box” to get to the end.
Comment quality declines
Constructive feedback shifts from actionable observations and quality recommendations for improvement to vague platitudes or nothing at all.
Inconsistent standards
Your early reviews get more thoughtful attention, while later ones are rushed, which creates objectivity and fairness concerns. You may also start with the ones you think are “easy,” which means you have saved the hardest ones for last, when you are fatigued.
The employee’s experience
Employees are not immune to rating fatigue. You are right. They are typically only doing one review – their own – when it comes to a performance review at work. But you have to look beyond work. Remember our Amazon and Uber ratings mentioned above? The rise of the consumer rating culture, where anything below a “5” is considered a failure, heavily influences self-assessments. This includes:
Desensitization
Self-reviews feel transactional. It is just another form to complete. “My manager already told me they never score anyone above a three anyway, so what’s the point?” This can also happen when employees are not told how the reviews are being used. This can lead to superficial reflection and “checking the box.” (Cornerstone, 2024)
Inflated or deflated ratings
Some employees will inflate their ratings (think Dunning-Kruger), while others may deflate their scores out of discomfort or Imposter Syndrome.
Emotional shortcuts
Instead of analyzing goals and outcomes with evidence, employees often ask themselves: “How do I feel I have been doing?”
Halo and recency effects
One recent success or failure occurring around the time of reviews can overshadow months of performance.
Why rating fatigue matters
Unchecked rating fatigue creates serious consequences. It:
- Undermines trust in the review process
- Inflates or masks actual performance differences
- Weakens development conversations
- Skews promotion compensation, and succession decisions
- Erodes credibility in the talent management system
What you can do: 6 strategies
There is good news! Rating fatigue is preventable. Leading organizations are redesigning their performance review processes with simple, research-based solutions.
1. Simplify review forms
Focus on a few, high-impact competencies and avoid overwhelming raters with dozens of questions. (ReviewSnap, 2023)
2. Use behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS)
Tie each rating to specific, observable behaviors and eliminate vague numbers in favor of performance narratives.
Example:
For Collaboration (5-point scale)
3 = Consistently shares information, supports others, and seeks cross-functional input.
Looks familiar, right? It’s a rubric. (AIHR, unknown)
3. Build a “Full Use of Scale” culture
Train managers and employees to use the entire scale without stigma. Normalize that “3” often means “meeting expectations” and that meeting expectations is not a bad thing – it is exactly what they are supposed to do.
4. Stagger review timelines
Spread evaluations over weeks instead of a single annual crunch to avoid cognitive overload with both managers and employees.
5. Introduce Self-Reflection Prompts
Shift self-reviews from ratings to narrative questions, such as: “What recent project challenged you most, and how did you grow?”
6. Train managers on rater bias & fatigue
Provide short, practical sessions on topics such as: Halo effects, leniency/severity drift, fatigue triggers, fair calibration practices. (Most Loved Workplace, 2025)
Reframing the goal
Ultimately, performance reviews should not feel like Yelp ratings. They should be:
- Reflective
- Evidence-based
- Human
- Developmental
By recognizing rating fatigue, and intentionally designing reviews to minimize it, organizations can restore the true value of performance conversations: growth, accountability, and trust.
If we want better performance, we need better conversations, not more checkboxes.
Additional References
Brown, M. and Benson, J.(2003) Rated to Exhaustion? Reactions to performance appraisal processes. Industrial Relations Journal, 34(1). Blackwell Publishing.
Knoch, U. (2010). Investigating the effectiveness of individualized feedback to rating behavior—a longitudinal study. Language Testing, 28(2), pp 179-200. Sage.
Image credit: Rudzhan Nagiev
