MT302 Unit 7 Performance Rating Bias Case Example

Course	MT302 Organizational Behavior
Unit	Unit 7
Paper type	Decision bias case
Length	About 1,140 words, 7 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	BS in Business Administration
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MT302 Unit 7

Last Year's Number at the Top of the Form: An MT302 Unit 7 Decision Bias Case on Seven Year-End Ratings

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT302: Organizational Behavior

Unit 7 Decision Bias Case

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The office, people and ratings are composite; the theories and studies cited are real.

What this part is doingStating in the lead that the explanation beats the reasons tells the reader the case will test the decision rather than defend it.

The Decision

I was promoted to team lead at our composite Fort Wayne title office in the fall and completed my first year-end ratings in December. The form uses a five-point scale with one decimal place. It asks for three written reasons. At the top, pre-filled by the system, is the person's rating from the previous year.

The Ratings and the Record

For each person: last year's rating, this year's rating, the change in audited error rate and the change in files handled.

1. Coordinator A. 3.4 to 3.5. Error rate unchanged. Files up 6 percent.

2. Coordinator B. 2.8 to 3.0. Error rate halved, 4.2 to 2.1 percent. Files up 11 percent.

3. Coordinator C. 3.9 to 3.9. Error rate up slightly. Files down 3 percent.

4. Coordinator D. 3.2 to 3.3. Error rate down slightly. Files unchanged.

5. Examiner E. 4.1 to 4.1. Error rate doubled, 1.5 to 3.0 percent. Files down 8 percent.

6. Examiner F. 3.6 to 3.8. Error rate unchanged. Files up 4 percent.

7. Examiner G. 3.0 to 3.1. Error rate down slightly. Files up 2 percent.

Six of seven ratings moved by 0.2 or less. The two people whose records changed most, B, who halved her error rate, and E, whose error rate doubled, moved by 0.2 and zero.

Testing the Written Reasons

Accuracy. For Examiner E, I wrote "consistently accurate work." Her audited error rate doubled. The reason describes her reputation, not her year.

Volume. For Coordinator B, I wrote "steady file volume." Her files rose 11 percent, the most on the team. The reason understates her year.

Teamwork and reliability. Most remaining reasons, such as "reliable team player" and "strong communicator," describe the person in general. None refers to an event from the year.

Of twenty-one reasons, I could match five to something in the year's records. The rest were descriptions of people I had known for years.

My reasons described the people I already knew; my numbers described last year's form.

What this part is doingTesting every written reason against the record before naming a bias makes the finding credible.

Anchoring as the Explanation

Tversky and Kahneman (1974) described anchoring and adjustment: when people estimate a value starting from an initial number, they adjust away from it, but usually not enough. The prior rating at the top of each form was an anchor I saw before writing anything.

Prediction. If anchoring explains the ratings, this year's ratings should cluster near last year's, with too little adjustment for people whose records changed most.

Evidence. The ratings fit. Six of seven sit within 0.2 of the anchor. The two largest changes in performance produced the two most inadequate adjustments. If I had rated B and E only on this year's records, B would have risen and E would have fallen by much more.

Two Rival Explanations

Recency bias. I might have rated on the last few months rather than the whole year. If so, ratings should track fourth-quarter performance. They do not: E's error rate rose most in the second quarter, and B improved steadily all year. Recency does not fit.

Leniency. I might have avoided giving anyone a low rating. Partly true: no one fell, and the lowest rating was 3.0. But leniency does not explain why E stayed at 4.1 rather than drifting toward the middle, and it does not explain B's small rise. Leniency explains part of the pattern; anchoring explains more.

Murphy (2008) argues that performance ratings often relate weakly to actual performance because raters are influenced by goals and context other than accuracy. My ratings show one such influence clearly.

Why the Form Made It Easy

The prior rating appears before anything else on the form, in the same box where the new rating goes. By the time I reached the reasons, I had already seen a number and, without deciding to, started from it. The form also asks for reasons after the rating, not before, so the reasons became justifications for a number already chosen. I wrote them quickly, from my general sense of each person, because nothing on the form asked me to look at the year's records. In that setting, the anchor did most of the work and the reasons did the rest. Most raters in our office use the same form, so the same pattern is probably in their ratings too.

Stating the Finding Plainly

I made these ratings. The anchoring did not happen to me; I let the prior number set my starting point and adjusted too little. I do not think it reflects poor intentions, and I do not think it means the ratings were worthless. It means that Coordinator B was underrated and Examiner E overrated, and both deserved a correction.

What Other Raters Could Check

The same test can be run on any set of ratings in a few minutes: list last year's rating, this year's rating and one or two objective measures for each person, then look at whether the ratings moved with the measures or stayed near last year's number. If ratings barely moved while the measures changed, anchoring is the first explanation to test.

What Happened Next

I asked the office manager to reopen both ratings. B's was raised to 3.6 and E's lowered to 3.6, with written reasons that cite the year's records. I explained the change to each of them. B was pleased; E disagreed, and we agreed to review her error rate again at midyear.

Redesign: Rate Blind, Then Look

Robbins and Judge (2019) note that awareness of a bias alone rarely removes it, and that changing the decision setting works better. The anchor was built into the form, so the redesign targets the form rather than my willpower.

1. Rate blind first. The prior rating is hidden until the current rating and reasons are entered.

2. Records before reasons. The form shows the year's error rate and file count beside the rating box.

3. Reasons must cite the year. Each reason must refer to a specific event or figure from the rating period.

4. Then view the prior rating. If the new rating differs by more than 0.5, the rater writes one sentence explaining the change.

What this part is doingChanging the form rather than asking raters to try harder shows an understanding of how biases work.

Conclusion

The previous year's rating, printed at the top of the form, anchored my year-end ratings and explains them better than my written reasons, which mostly described people rather than their year. Recency does not fit the evidence and leniency fits only partly. Hiding the prior rating until after the current one is entered is a small change that removes the anchor at its source.

References

Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(2), 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00030.x

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

MT302 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms

In Unit 7 students analyze a decision, often one they made, for the influence of a cognitive bias. The case should describe the decision and its setting clearly, including any information the decision-maker saw. Most prompts expect the stated reasons to be tested first, so that the bias finding is not assumed. A bias should then be applied with a specific prediction the evidence can confirm or reject. Rival explanations, such as other biases, should be considered and weighed. Instructors look for plain statements about the student's own role without defensiveness. The case should close with a redesign of the decision process, preferably targeting the setting rather than asking the decision-maker to try harder. Records or figures are usually needed to make the analysis checkable.

Inside the MT302 Unit 7 example

The sample describes the five-point form with last year's rating pre-filled at the top. A list for seven people shows prior and current ratings beside error and volume changes. The reasons section tests accuracy, volume and general reasons against the records, finding five of twenty-one supported, under the highlighted line that the reasons described people and the numbers described last year's form. Anchoring is applied with a prediction the ratings confirm. Recency is rejected because the ratings do not track the fourth quarter, and leniency is found partial. A section explains how the form made the bias easy. Two ratings are reopened. A four-step blind-rating form, supported by Robbins and Judge, closes the case.

MT302 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points

Decision bias cases are generally assessed on testing of stated reasons, accurate application of the bias, consideration of rivals and quality of the redesign. Graders reward cases that give the stated reasons a fair hearing before introducing a bias. The bias should come with a specific prediction and evidence that confirms it. Rival explanations should be weighed with reasons for accepting or rejecting each. Students should state their own role plainly. The redesign should target the setting where the bias operates. Figures or records make the analysis checkable. The original description of the bias and research on rating accuracy should be cited in APA 7. Naming a bias up front and leaving it untested is the quickest way to lose credit here.

Common MT302 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Bias cases often name a bias at the outset and then describe the decision to fit it. Another common weakness is skipping the decision-maker's stated reasons, which leaves the bias claim untested. Some students consider only one bias. Redesigns frequently amount to "be more careful," which research suggests rarely works. Students analyzing their own decisions sometimes either excuse themselves or criticize themselves harshly instead of stating the finding. Before drafting, gather the decision record, what you decided and what you wrote about why, along with any objective measures. Then compare them. Supply those records and the prompt, and the case can be built around a test of your own reasons.

Get an MT302 Unit 7 example written to your instructions

Describe the decision you want examined, without names, or point to the case your instructor assigned, and add the Unit 7 prompt and rubric. A free first sample tests the stated reasons against the evidence, names the bias that fits and weighs its rivals. Expect it within 24-48h, shaped to your own instructions. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More MT302 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT302 Unit 7 questions, answered

What is anchoring and adjustment?

A pattern Tversky and Kahneman described in which people estimate by starting from an initial value and adjusting, usually too little. The initial value can be relevant, like last year's rating, or entirely arbitrary. In workplace decisions it appears wherever a prior number is visible: budgets, salary offers, time estimates and performance appraisals.

Can a decision reflect both a bias and good reasons?

Yes. Biases and reasons can both contribute, and a paper should test how much each explains. Here the reasons were sincere but described people in general rather than the year, while the anchor predicted the actual numbers. Showing that division is more convincing than dismissing the reasons outright.

Is a biased decision I made myself a risky subject?

It is usually the stronger choice, and instructors tend to respect it. Keep other people anonymous, stay with the decision rather than confession, and end with a change to the process. Biases are features of how everyone decides, so identifying one in your own work demonstrates understanding rather than failure.

Where can I find a free MT302 Unit 7 sample paper?

The complete MT302 Unit 7 decision bias case is on this page, showing how a prior rating anchored seven year-end ratings.

What redesign does the MT302 Unit 7 sample propose?

Hiding last year's rating until the new rating and reasons are entered, showing the year's records beside the rating and requiring reasons tied to the year.