INTRODUCTION

An example,

Q. How would you rate the work done by your customer

service representative?

 Excellent
 Good
 Average
 Bad
 Unsatisfactory
WHAT IS BARS?
 Approaches that identify and evaluate relevant job
related behaviors.

 It bases evaluations on specific behaviors required

for each individual position in an individual company.

 It gives the rater reference points in evaluation

WHAT IS BARS?

 Composed of job dimensions (specific descriptions of

important job behaviors) that “anchor” performance
levels on the scale.

 Two most popular approaches of BARS

 Behavioral expectation scales
 Behavioral observation scales
BEHAVIORAL EXPECTATION SCALES

 It uses specific named behaviors as benchmarks to help

the rater
 It attempts to reduces subjectivity & biases of other
approaches to performance measurement
 It is expressed in terms understood by rater as well as
employee
 Limitation is that raters observe only a limited number
of performance categories.
BEHAVIORAL EXPECTATION SCALES

An example of job-related behaviors with respective

performance ratings for a customer service
representative
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION SCALES

 It uses specific named behaviors as benchmarks and

require rater to report frequency of those behaviors.

 It minimizes personality disputes, enables raters to

explain low rating, leads to comprehensive reviews and
improves feedback between rater & worker
AN EXAMPLE OF BOS
PROCEDURE FOR BARS
• Identify roles / categories of roles for which rating is to be developed. Should have common
capabilities
1

• Constitute as many peer groups of appraisers as possible for above roles. These groups can be
called for a short workshop or periodic meetings
2

• Ask each group to identify and list qualities / characteristics important for that role / category
3

• Select most frequently mentioned dimensions. Talk about critical incidents clearly
4

• Each group formulates general statements representing definitions of high, low and
acceptable performance for each quality
5
PROCEDURE FOR BARS
• Groups prepare examples of behaviour in each quality and these are edited in the form of
expectations
6

• Some groups may act as judges. They attempt independently to reclassify each behaviour
description into one of the dimensions measured.
7

• When there is no agreement with the original classification, either the dimension or the behaviour
example is to be eliminated
8

• Use some groups to describe outstanding and poor performer in each role category. Use these
descriptions to see if dimensions identified in steps 2 & 3 are critical to the role category
9

• Present the finally selected behaviours in vertical scale formats.

10
ADVANTAGES

 Ratings not easily subject to different rater’s

interpretations.
 It meets EEOC guidelines for fair employment practices,
since job criterion for assessment are derived from actual
job performance and are related to it. (Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission)
 A more accurate gauge
 Clearer standards
 Independent dimensions
 Consistency
DISADVANTAGES

 Requires observational skill and proper determination

of critical behaviour; inadequacies can lead to
misleading data.

 Compilation of critical behaviour takes considerable

time and effort, and recording data also involve alert
and constant observations (i.e. keeping logs)

 Less preferable due to similarity to traits measured

COMMON RATER ERRORS

 Unclear standards: An appraisal that is too open to

interpretation.

 Halo effect: When a supervisor’s rating of a

subordinate on one trait biases his rating on other
traits.

 Central tendency: A tendency to rate all employees the

same way, such as rating them all average.
COMMON RATER ERRORS
 Strictness/leniency: The problem that occurs when a
supervisor has a tendency to rate all subordinates
either high or low.

 Bias: The tendency to allow individual differences

such as age, race, and sex to affect the appraisal
ratings employees receive.
COMMON RATER ERRORS
USE & APPLICATION
 Used across corporates (IT, Mfg., Retail) to
assess behavioral competencies of employees.

 Used in schools to assess the quality of faculty-

based student advising.

 Used in the US Army to enhance combat leaders'

tactical thinking skills: Tactical Thinking
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (T-BARS)