Ahhh, the self review. The bane of any corporate worker’s existence. You hate writing them, and your manager hates reading them. Trust me. They do.

Turns out, they aren’t even useful. Science says so:

Researchers at Cornell found that the worst performers (in a variety of categories) often rated themselves and their performance, in most cases, far above average. But get this: Top performers rated themselves lower than their performance merited.

Here’s what the researchers reasoned:

The reasoning for these behaviors is fascinating. Poor performers lack the skills to perform–which are the same skills required to evaluate their performance. They don’t understand that they don’t understand, and so believe their abilities compare positively to their peers.

On the other hand, Top performers incorrectly assume that their competence is shared among their peers–leading them to rank themselves lower than they deserve.

My experience finds this to be 100% true. In my last corporate position I had 10 (or was it 11?) direct reports. The losers gave themselves the highest marks, while my superstars were unnecessarily harsh on themselves.

As a manager, the conversation with the superstars was much easier, and way more fun. It’s great when you get to deliver the “significantly exceeding expectations” review to someone who doesn’t expect it.

The other conversations, not so much. When they are starting from an “I’m awesome and exceeding expectations” perspective and you’re coming from a “you suck and I’m doing everything in my power to get your job eliminated so I don’t have to go through the tedious process of firing you” perspective, you will struggle to find common ground.

Not missing that corporate job at all at the moment.

Read the whole report form Cornell here.