Which performance appraisal problem can influence a supervisor to rate an employee consistently higher than warranted?

The phenomenon where a supervisor consistently rates an employee higher than warranted is known as supervisor leniency. This performance appraisal problem occurs when evaluators give inflated ratings to avoid conflict or to maintain a positive atmosphere within the team. Supervisors may feel inclined to rate employees favorably due to a desire for rapport, to encourage morale, or simply to avoid any potential backlash or disagreements that could arise from negative evaluations.

When ratings are lenient, they can distort the true performance picture, preventing accurate assessments and necessary feedback from being communicated. This can lead to issues in personal development for the employee, as they may not receive the constructive criticism needed to improve. Moreover, lenient ratings can undermine the overall performance appraisal system, creating disparities in assessments across the organization.

In contrast, the other options refer to different appraisal issues: central tendency involves avoiding extreme ratings and clustering scores around the middle; career effect refers to how performance appraisals can impact an employee's career progression; while the halo effect involves allowing one positive trait to influence ratings on other unrelated dimensions. These factors, while significant in their own right, do not specifically relate to the consistent inflation of ratings as supervisor leniency does.