Grade Suggestions: Should PLs See Them First?

The Dilemma: Grade Suggestions and PL Autonomy

As a Product Lead (PL), the integrity of the assessment process is paramount. A core aspect of this integrity lies in maintaining the autonomy of the PL in assigning grades. This brings us to a crucial point of discussion: should PLs be able to see grade suggestions derived from self and peer assessments before they conduct their own grading? Currently, in systems like the one described, these averages are visible at the bottom of the page within the 'Grade' section, under 'Self Evaluation Average' and 'Peer Evaluation Average'. This visibility, while seemingly helpful, raises significant questions about potential bias and the true nature of the PL's evaluative role. The primary concern is that seeing these suggested grades might unconsciously, or even consciously, influence the PL's own assessment, thereby undermining the independent judgment that their position demands. This article delves into why this feature might be problematic and explores alternative approaches to ensure a fair and unbiased grading process.

The Case for Seclusion: Protecting Independent Judgment

Let's dive deeper into why PLs should not be able to see grade suggestions based on self and peer assessments prior to their own grading. The fundamental principle at play here is maintaining the PL's independent judgment. A Product Lead is expected to bring their unique perspective, understanding of project goals, and knowledge of individual contributions to the grading process. This role requires an objective evaluation, free from the influence of others' opinions, even if those opinions are aggregated into an average. When a PL sees a 'Self Evaluation Average' or 'Peer Evaluation Average' before submitting their own grade, there's a high risk of conformity bias. This is the tendency for individuals to align their own opinions or behaviors with those of a larger group. In this context, a PL might find themselves adjusting their score to match the peer or self-assessment average, not because they genuinely believe it's the most accurate reflection of the work, but simply to align with the perceived consensus. This can lead to grades that are less reflective of true performance and more a product of social pressure within the assessment system.

Furthermore, the purpose of peer and self-assessments is often to provide valuable feedback and insights that the PL might not otherwise have. These assessments can highlight areas of strength or weakness, identify contributions that might have been overlooked, and offer diverse perspectives. However, if the PL is presented with an average score upfront, they may be less inclined to thoroughly read and consider the detailed qualitative feedback accompanying the quantitative scores. They might skim through the comments, looking for justification for the presented average, rather than engaging with the nuanced observations that could lead to a more informed and accurate grade. This shortcut bypasses the rich data that the peer and self-assessments are designed to provide, turning them into mere indicators rather than sources of deep insight. The PL's role is to synthesize all this information – their own observations, the self-assessment, and the peer assessments – into a final, considered grade. Presenting an average score prematurely disrupts this synthesis process and can lead to a grading outcome that is less robust and less equitable.

Another critical aspect is the perception of fairness. If team members know that their PL can see the aggregated peer and self-scores before making their own decision, it could subtly alter their approach to the assessment. They might feel less inclined to be candid in their self-assessments or peer reviews, fearing that their scores will unduly influence the PL's decision or that their feedback will be perceived as 'ganging up' or 'over-scoring' if the PL's grade differs significantly. This can lead to a chilling effect on honest feedback. Conversely, they might inflate scores, believing it will sway the PL. The goal is to foster an environment where honest, constructive feedback is encouraged, and the PL's role is seen as a final, independent arbiter who considers all inputs holistically. By keeping the aggregated suggestions hidden until after the PL submits their own grade, the system encourages more genuine feedback and reinforces the PL's role as an objective evaluator.

The Impact on Feedback Quality and Perceived Fairness

Let's delve deeper into the impact on feedback quality and perceived fairness when PLs are exposed to self and peer assessment averages before finalizing their own grades. When a PL sees an average score – say, a 4.5 out of 5 from peers and a 4.8 from self-assessment – before they've even submitted their own rating, it creates a strong anchor point. This anchor can subtly shift their own perception. Even if their initial assessment leaned towards a 3.5, the presence of the higher averages might lead them to question their own judgment or feel pressured to