Modern Performance appraisal methods

 

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

Even though we all have faced Performance appraisals in every organization we have ever worked, it is a question if all the effort put on appraisals are really productive or accurate. In these series of blogs I have analyzed the modern performance appraisals to shed light onto challenges and opportunities each method brings to the table.   

Introduction

BARS was introduced in 1963 by Smith and Kendal. The focus of BARS was to address concerns of reliability and Validity of Performance Appraisals. It involves a scale as opposed to numbers. Theses scales are more informative as compared to numbers. Theses scales are prepared based on the behavioral aspect. Rater acts as an observer. BARS uses behavioral statements to illustrate multiple levels of performance. (Aggarwal & Thakur, 2013)

                                            Image-Sample BARS Scale used for Appraisal.

Generating BARS Scales

 

As a first step to define scales we should first identify the critical incidents employee faces on the job/task. Then the highly effective, low effective and satisfactory behavior for each situation needs to be identified. This information can be gathered from workshops, One on Ones, Groups, or past reviews.  This information then goes through multiple filtration steps to obtain the final output.

Critical occurrences are also rated according to their frequency, relevance, specificity, and likelihood of occurrence. These ratings are then evaluated in greater depth. Then, the total performance criteria are evaluated, considering their importance in determining overall job performance. (Kell et al., 2017)

Advantage of using BARS

Utilization and qualitative factors like rating accuracy and feedback potential make the BARS superior. By enabling raters to share genuine performance marks, it increases rating accuracy. In comparison to other evaluation forms, BARS also results in more acceptable feedback, behavioral modifications, and increased ratee satisfaction. Due to their emphasis on coworkers' opinions, even employees who were not directly involved in the development of BARS have a positive opinion of the scales. The collective mentality of BARS gives raters a distinct advantage during the rating process.(Debnath et al., 2015)

 

In evaluation tools including graphic rating scales, forced choice methods, behavioral checklist methods, and behavioral observation scales, the flexibility and judgment of the rater is essential. These rigid instruments only allow raters to select from a small number of possibilities, which may not correctly reflect their performance. BARS highlights significant occurrences and scale values for each performance dimension with the intention of assisting raters in choosing a location on the scale continuum that best captures the performance of the ratee. The adaptability and versatility of BARS for rating purposes support accuracy and motivation of raters.(Debnath et al., 2015)

Steps for developing BARS

1. Collect examples of appropriate and inappropriate job-related behavior. Some individuals utilize the Critical Incident Technique.
2. Transform data into performance dimensions using behavioral examples.
3. Request that the subject matter experts (SMEs) on your team translate into their own performance dimensions.
4. Provide the remaining behaviors with a scale, usually ranging from 5 to 9 points.
5. To assure SME consensus on behavior ratings, eliminate the more divergent standards.
6. Create the final scale in accordance.

Downsides of Using the Bars Approach

1. Time-consuming and tedious activity- The idea of tailoring each employee's experience to their specific work is appealing, but it would require a substantial investment of time and resources for a large company.
2. It Costs a lot- Money is time. This may not be possible in the near future for smaller groups with overlapping responsibilities.
3. It Requires management team drive and dedication- It is necessary to create all of the evaluation's assertions and anchors. It requires a lot of work and the participation of managers.
4. Leniency bias- While BARS does directly eliminate some sources of bias in evaluations, it does not eliminate them entirely. There are many who think the mercy mistake can yet be made.

Reference

Aggarwal, Ashima & Mitra Thakur, Gour. (2013). Techniques of Performance Appraisal-A Review. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology. ISSN. 2249-8958. Pg 618

Kell, H.J., Martin-Raugh, M.P., Carney, L.M., Inglese, P.A., Chen, L. and Feng, G. (2017), “Exploring Methods for Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Evaluating Structured Interview Performance”, ETS Research Report Series, Wiley, Vol. 2017 No. 1, pp. 1–26.

Kell, H.J., Martin-Raugh, M.P., Carney, L.M., Inglese, P.A., Chen, L. and Feng, G. (2017), “Exploring Methods for Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Evaluating Structured Interview Performance”, ETS Research Report Series, Wiley, Vol. 2017 No. 1, pp. 1–26.