BARS has been around for ages now. I have realized its true potential over the past year and I want to share how impactful it can be.
Some of its impacts are:
1) Selecting the right candidate using BARS as an assessment criterion in a Behavior Event Based Interview
2) Rating competencies during performance appraisals
3) Highlighting behaviors that need to develop/improve for a person to move to the next level
4) Providing a standardized/uniform way of measuring and analyzing competencies in an organization.
The following is an excerpt that I have taken from an article:
"I am also attaching an example of a BARS chart."
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALE?
The specific purpose of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale is to use behavioral procedures to design an instrument that can identify and measure the critical components that constitute effective performance in an occupation. The instrument has been used to identify performance competencies in occupations such as Nurses (Smith and Kendall, 1963), store managers (Campbell, et al., 1973), college professors (Harrai and Zedeck, 1973), and for identifying the professional and career development activities needed by teachers (Erffmeyer and Martray, 1988). The instrument allows researchers to "capture performance in multidimensional, behavior-specific terms" (Anshel and Webb, 1989).
A scale is constructed by developing a series of critical anchors or competencies that are perceived to represent effective performance in an occupation. Each competency area is then defined as a series of precise and specific indicators or dimensions. These indicators are written as specific behaviors that can be observed, rather than inferred. Each set of indicators is designed to represent the specific skills associated with effective performance in the competency area. As Smith and Kendall (1963) proclaim, the instrument is "rooted in and referable to actual behaviors."
To ensure content validity, a representative sample of the targeted population or occupation is used to construct each rating scale (Erffmeyer and Martray, 1988). Generally, this procedure involves selecting individuals because of their expertise in the area of investigation. Individuals are split into groups and go through identical processes to develop the scale. Behavioral anchors or competencies are identified, as well as the dimensions or indicators in each competency area. Smith and Kendall (1963) maintain that these procedures allow an instrument to be developed in the language of the occupation being investigated, therefore increasing its face validity. Once constructed, a rating scale is then administered to a wider sample of the targeted occupational population. Respondents are asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale their perception of how essential each competency area is to effective performance. Each competency can be rated, or each individual indicator (Campbell, 1973). Erffmeyer and Martray (1988) included another dimension to this step by asking respondents to also indicate, on a five-point scale, the level of difficulty they experienced in developing each skill area.
After a scale has been administered, it is then evaluated as to the level of how essential the competencies and the indicators are perceived to be. The criterion for inclusion on the final rating scale of an indicator or competency is a mean essential ranking of greater than or equal to 3.5 and a standard deviation of less than 1.2 (Smith and Kendall, 1963).
THE USE OF BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALES
Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) provide a procedure to overcome some of the inherent weaknesses typically associated with traditional rating scales.
Gay (1981, 128) generally suggests that rating scales have problems with the "halo effect" and "generosity error." "Halo effect" refers to the situation where ratings are influenced by a rater's positive feeling toward the person they are rating. "Generosity error" refers to the situation in which a rater gives higher ratings than they otherwise might. This generally occurs when a rater does not have enough information to make an objective rating and as a result, the ratee benefits from any doubt that may exist, with a high rating (Gay, 1981).
Another problem associated with rating scales is when "trait-type" scales are used. Often the dimensions used in trait-type scales are ambiguous. This results in threats to the internal validity of the instrument.
Smith and Kendall (1963) and Campbell (1973) argue that these problems can be overcome through the use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. The strength of these scales is in the level of precision and specificity that occurs in the procedure for design and construction. Firstly, identified items for rating are at all times defined in specific behavioral terms. In addition, the scales measure performance, rather than behavioral or effectiveness. Campbell et al. (1973) specify that performance is behavior that occurs in a specific context.
Effectiveness is also not measured with the scale. The reason being that effectiveness is influenced by too many variables out of the control of an individual. As Campbell et al. (1973, 15) maintain:
"The crucial distinction between performance and effectiveness is that the latter does not refer to behavior directly but rather it is a function of additional factors not under the control of the individual."
THE PROCEDURES
In utilizing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales, the following process needs to be undertaken:
1. Generation of expert panels. Two panels of "experts" who, due to their knowledge and experience in the area of study, are able to design an instrument to assess quality performance.
2. Designing a questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale of "competencies" required to measure performance.
3. Validating the instrument by sending the questionnaire to a wide sample.
4. Analysis of the results.
Advantages:
- These types of rating scales are particularly effective for assessing competencies, skills, and abilities.
- BARS rating scales are highly valid and job-related because important job requirements are covered.
- Objective benchmarks are provided against which observations can be rated; therefore, there is less rating error than when using other types of scales (e.g., numeric).
Cautions:
- BARS scales take some time and effort to create and usually cannot be used for job types other than those for which they were developed.
Developing a BARS Scale:
- Using subject matter experts, identify examples of job performance behaviors reflecting all different levels of effectiveness ranging from ineffective to superior for all the different parts of the job. These are key indicators only. It is not required to be an exhaustive list of every possible criterion. You may have already identified these behaviors when you conducted your job analysis to establish the qualifications and competencies. If so, use them here.
- Examples are then clustered by content and categories of job performance and ranked according to importance.
- Major, essential, or core criteria are distinguished from those that are minor or secondary within the group.
- Focus on the extreme ends of each range (i.e., the 5 and the 0-1 points) and describe them fully first OR focus on describing the "3 or 4 Point" passing answer first, then add or subtract to define other answers.
- Decide how many points will be awarded and how irrelevant or incorrect responses will be scored. A wrong answer should result in a failing grade.
- Assign marks that reflect the relative importance of the question and the competency being assessed.
- The scale may be multiplied by a factor to increase the overall weighting. For example, a 5-point scale is multiplied by a factor of 4 to increase the weight of the assessment to 20 points in the overall competition.
With Regards,
Kenneth
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
20Some of its impacts are:
1) Selecting the right candidate using BARS as an assessment criterion in a Behavior Event Based Interview
2) Rating competencies during performance appraisals
3) Highlighting behaviors that need to develop/improve for a person to move to the next level
4) Providing a standardized/uniform way of measuring and analyzing competencies in an organization.
The following is an excerpt that I have taken from an article:
"I am also attaching an example of a BARS chart."
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALE?
The specific purpose of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale is to use behavioral procedures to design an instrument that can identify and measure the critical components that constitute effective performance in an occupation. The instrument has been used to identify performance competencies in occupations such as Nurses (Smith and Kendall, 1963), store managers (Campbell, et al., 1973), college professors (Harrai and Zedeck, 1973), and for identifying the professional and career development activities needed by teachers (Erffmeyer and Martray, 1988). The instrument allows researchers to "capture performance in multidimensional, behavior-specific terms" (Anshel and Webb, 1989).
A scale is constructed by developing a series of critical anchors or competencies that are perceived to represent effective performance in an occupation. Each competency area is then defined as a series of precise and specific indicators or dimensions. These indicators are written as specific behaviors that can be observed, rather than inferred. Each set of indicators is designed to represent the specific skills associated with effective performance in the competency area. As Smith and Kendall (1963) proclaim, the instrument is "rooted in and referable to actual behaviors."
To ensure content validity, a representative sample of the targeted population or occupation is used to construct each rating scale (Erffmeyer and Martray, 1988). Generally, this procedure involves selecting individuals because of their expertise in the area of investigation. Individuals are split into groups and go through identical processes to develop the scale. Behavioral anchors or competencies are identified, as well as the dimensions or indicators in each competency area. Smith and Kendall (1963) maintain that these procedures allow an instrument to be developed in the language of the occupation being investigated, therefore increasing its face validity. Once constructed, a rating scale is then administered to a wider sample of the targeted occupational population. Respondents are asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale their perception of how essential each competency area is to effective performance. Each competency can be rated, or each individual indicator (Campbell, 1973). Erffmeyer and Martray (1988) included another dimension to this step by asking respondents to also indicate, on a five-point scale, the level of difficulty they experienced in developing each skill area.
After a scale has been administered, it is then evaluated as to the level of how essential the competencies and the indicators are perceived to be. The criterion for inclusion on the final rating scale of an indicator or competency is a mean essential ranking of greater than or equal to 3.5 and a standard deviation of less than 1.2 (Smith and Kendall, 1963).
THE USE OF BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALES
Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) provide a procedure to overcome some of the inherent weaknesses typically associated with traditional rating scales.
Gay (1981, 128) generally suggests that rating scales have problems with the "halo effect" and "generosity error." "Halo effect" refers to the situation where ratings are influenced by a rater's positive feeling toward the person they are rating. "Generosity error" refers to the situation in which a rater gives higher ratings than they otherwise might. This generally occurs when a rater does not have enough information to make an objective rating and as a result, the ratee benefits from any doubt that may exist, with a high rating (Gay, 1981).
Another problem associated with rating scales is when "trait-type" scales are used. Often the dimensions used in trait-type scales are ambiguous. This results in threats to the internal validity of the instrument.
Smith and Kendall (1963) and Campbell (1973) argue that these problems can be overcome through the use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. The strength of these scales is in the level of precision and specificity that occurs in the procedure for design and construction. Firstly, identified items for rating are at all times defined in specific behavioral terms. In addition, the scales measure performance, rather than behavioral or effectiveness. Campbell et al. (1973) specify that performance is behavior that occurs in a specific context.
Effectiveness is also not measured with the scale. The reason being that effectiveness is influenced by too many variables out of the control of an individual. As Campbell et al. (1973, 15) maintain:
"The crucial distinction between performance and effectiveness is that the latter does not refer to behavior directly but rather it is a function of additional factors not under the control of the individual."
THE PROCEDURES
In utilizing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales, the following process needs to be undertaken:
1. Generation of expert panels. Two panels of "experts" who, due to their knowledge and experience in the area of study, are able to design an instrument to assess quality performance.
2. Designing a questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale of "competencies" required to measure performance.
3. Validating the instrument by sending the questionnaire to a wide sample.
4. Analysis of the results.
Advantages:
- These types of rating scales are particularly effective for assessing competencies, skills, and abilities.
- BARS rating scales are highly valid and job-related because important job requirements are covered.
- Objective benchmarks are provided against which observations can be rated; therefore, there is less rating error than when using other types of scales (e.g., numeric).
Cautions:
- BARS scales take some time and effort to create and usually cannot be used for job types other than those for which they were developed.
Developing a BARS Scale:
- Using subject matter experts, identify examples of job performance behaviors reflecting all different levels of effectiveness ranging from ineffective to superior for all the different parts of the job. These are key indicators only. It is not required to be an exhaustive list of every possible criterion. You may have already identified these behaviors when you conducted your job analysis to establish the qualifications and competencies. If so, use them here.
- Examples are then clustered by content and categories of job performance and ranked according to importance.
- Major, essential, or core criteria are distinguished from those that are minor or secondary within the group.
- Focus on the extreme ends of each range (i.e., the 5 and the 0-1 points) and describe them fully first OR focus on describing the "3 or 4 Point" passing answer first, then add or subtract to define other answers.
- Decide how many points will be awarded and how irrelevant or incorrect responses will be scored. A wrong answer should result in a failing grade.
- Assign marks that reflect the relative importance of the question and the competency being assessed.
- The scale may be multiplied by a factor to increase the overall weighting. For example, a 5-point scale is multiplied by a factor of 4 to increase the weight of the assessment to 20 points in the overall competition.
With Regards,
Kenneth
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Hi Kenneth,
Great piece of work. But I want you to elucidate what the acronyms of EC, RIGM, etc., are in the Excel sheet given and what is the procedure to use this form. Can you please post it to "sidsupercop@gmail.com"?
Regards,
Siddiq
Dear all,
BARS has been around for ages now. I have realized its true potential over the past year and I want to share how impactful it can be. Some of its impacts are on:
1) Selecting the right candidate using BARS as an Assessment criteria in a Behavior Event-Based Interview
2) Rating Competencies during performance Appraisals
3) Highlighting behaviors that need to develop/improve for a person to move to the next level
4) Giving a standardized/uniform way of measuring and analyzing competencies in an organization.
The following is an excerpt that I have taken from an article:
"I am also attaching an example of a BARS chart."
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALE?
The specific purpose of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale is to use behavioral procedures to design an instrument that can identify and measure the critical components that constitute effective performance in an occupation. The instrument has been used to identify performance competencies in occupations such as Nurses (Smith and Kendall, 1963), store managers (Campbell, et. al., 1973), college professors (Harrai and Zedeck, 1973), and for identifying the professional and career development activities needed by teachers (Erffmeyer and Martray, 1988). The instrument allows researchers to "capture performance in multidimensional, behavior-specific terms" (Anshel and Webb, 1989).
A scale is constructed by developing a series of critical anchors or competencies that are perceived to represent effective performance in an occupation. Each competency area is then defined as a series of precise and specific indicators or dimensions. These indicators are written as specific behaviors that can be observed, rather than inferred. Each set of indicators is designed to represent the specific skills associated with effective performance in the competency area. As Smith and Kendall (1963) proclaim, the instrument is "rooted in and referable to actual behaviors".
To ensure content validity, a representative sample of the targeted population or occupation is used to construct each rating scale (Erffmeyer and Martray, 1988). Generally, this procedure involves selecting individuals because of their expertise in the area of investigation. Individuals are split into groups and go through identical processes to develop the scale. Behavioral anchors or competencies are identified as well as the dimensions or indicators in each competency area. Smith and Kendall (1963) maintain that these procedures allow for an instrument to be developed in the language of the occupation being investigated, therefore increasing its face validity. Once constructed, a rating scale is then administered to a wider sample of the targeted occupational population. Respondents are asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale their perception of how essential each competency area is to effective performance. Each competency can be rated, or each individual indicator (Campbell, 1973). Erffmeyer and Martray (1988) included another dimension to this step by asking respondents to also indicate, on a five-point scale, the level of difficulty they experienced in developing each skill area.
After a scale has been administered, it is then evaluated as to the level of how essential the competencies and the indicators are perceived to be. The criterion for inclusion on the final rating scale of an indicator or competency is a mean essential ranking of greater than or equal to 3.5 and a standard deviation of less than 1.2 (Smith and Kendall, 1963).
THE USE OF BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALES
Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) provide a procedure to overcome some of the inherent weaknesses typically associated with traditional rating scales. Gay (1981, 128) generally suggests that rating scales have problems with the "halo effect" and "generosity error". "Halo effect" refers to the situation where ratings are influenced by a rater's positive feeling towards the person they are rating. "Generosity error" refers to the situation in which a rater gives higher ratings than they otherwise might. This generally occurs when a rater does not have enough information to make an objective rating and as a result, the ratee benefits from any doubt that may exist, with a high rating (Gay, 1981).
Another problem associated with rating scales is when "trait type" scales are used. Often the dimensions used in trait type scales are ambiguous. This results in threats to the internal validity of the instrument. Smith and Kendall (1963) and Campbell (1973) argue that these problems can be overcome through the use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. The strength of these scales is in the level of precision and specificity that occurs in the procedure for design and construction. Firstly, identified items for rating are at all times defined in specific behavioral terms. In addition, the scales measure performance, rather than behavioral or effectiveness. Campbell et. al. (1973) specify that performance is behavior that occurs in a specific context. Effectiveness is also not measured with the scale. The reason being that effectiveness is influenced by too many variables out of the control of an individual. As Campbell et. al. (1973, 15) maintain:
"The crucial distinction between performance and effectiveness is that the latter does not refer to behavior directly but rather it is a function of additional factors not under the control of the individual."
THE PROCEDURES
In utilizing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales, the following process needs to be undertaken:
1. Generation of expert panels. Two panels of "experts" who, due to their knowledge and experience in the area of study, are able to design an instrument to assess quality performance.
2. Designing a questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale of "competencies" required to measure performance.
3. Validating the instrument by sending the questionnaire to a wide sample.
4. Analysis of the results.
Advantages:
- These types of rating scales are particularly effective for assessing competencies, skills, and abilities.
- BARS rating scales are highly valid and job-related because important job requirements are covered.
- Objective benchmarks are provided against which observations can be rated, therefore, there is less rating error than when using other types of scales (e.g., numeric).
Cautions:
- BARS scales take some time and effort to create and usually cannot be used for job types other than those for which they were developed.
Developing a BARS Scale:
- Using subject matter experts, identify examples of job performance behaviors reflecting all different levels of effectiveness ranging from ineffective to superior for all the different parts of the job. These are key indicators only. It is not required to be an exhaustive list of every possible criterion. You may have already identified these behaviors when you conducted your job analysis to establish the qualifications and competencies. If so, use them here.
- Examples are then clustered by content and categories of job performance and ranked according to importance.
- Major, essential, or core criteria are distinguished from those that are minor or secondary within the group.
- Decide how many points will be awarded and how irrelevant or incorrect responses will be scored. A wrong answer should result in a failing grade.
- Assign marks that reflect the relative importance of the question and the competency being assessed.
- The scale may be multiplied by a factor to increase the overall weighting. For example, a 5-point scale is multiplied by a factor of 4 to increase the weight of the assessment to 20 points in the overall competition.
With Regards,
Kenneth
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Great piece of work. But I want you to elucidate what the acronyms of EC, RIGM, etc., are in the Excel sheet given and what is the procedure to use this form. Can you please post it to "sidsupercop@gmail.com"?
Regards,
Siddiq
Dear all,
BARS has been around for ages now. I have realized its true potential over the past year and I want to share how impactful it can be. Some of its impacts are on:
1) Selecting the right candidate using BARS as an Assessment criteria in a Behavior Event-Based Interview
2) Rating Competencies during performance Appraisals
3) Highlighting behaviors that need to develop/improve for a person to move to the next level
4) Giving a standardized/uniform way of measuring and analyzing competencies in an organization.
The following is an excerpt that I have taken from an article:
"I am also attaching an example of a BARS chart."
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALE?
The specific purpose of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale is to use behavioral procedures to design an instrument that can identify and measure the critical components that constitute effective performance in an occupation. The instrument has been used to identify performance competencies in occupations such as Nurses (Smith and Kendall, 1963), store managers (Campbell, et. al., 1973), college professors (Harrai and Zedeck, 1973), and for identifying the professional and career development activities needed by teachers (Erffmeyer and Martray, 1988). The instrument allows researchers to "capture performance in multidimensional, behavior-specific terms" (Anshel and Webb, 1989).
A scale is constructed by developing a series of critical anchors or competencies that are perceived to represent effective performance in an occupation. Each competency area is then defined as a series of precise and specific indicators or dimensions. These indicators are written as specific behaviors that can be observed, rather than inferred. Each set of indicators is designed to represent the specific skills associated with effective performance in the competency area. As Smith and Kendall (1963) proclaim, the instrument is "rooted in and referable to actual behaviors".
To ensure content validity, a representative sample of the targeted population or occupation is used to construct each rating scale (Erffmeyer and Martray, 1988). Generally, this procedure involves selecting individuals because of their expertise in the area of investigation. Individuals are split into groups and go through identical processes to develop the scale. Behavioral anchors or competencies are identified as well as the dimensions or indicators in each competency area. Smith and Kendall (1963) maintain that these procedures allow for an instrument to be developed in the language of the occupation being investigated, therefore increasing its face validity. Once constructed, a rating scale is then administered to a wider sample of the targeted occupational population. Respondents are asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale their perception of how essential each competency area is to effective performance. Each competency can be rated, or each individual indicator (Campbell, 1973). Erffmeyer and Martray (1988) included another dimension to this step by asking respondents to also indicate, on a five-point scale, the level of difficulty they experienced in developing each skill area.
After a scale has been administered, it is then evaluated as to the level of how essential the competencies and the indicators are perceived to be. The criterion for inclusion on the final rating scale of an indicator or competency is a mean essential ranking of greater than or equal to 3.5 and a standard deviation of less than 1.2 (Smith and Kendall, 1963).
THE USE OF BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALES
Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) provide a procedure to overcome some of the inherent weaknesses typically associated with traditional rating scales. Gay (1981, 128) generally suggests that rating scales have problems with the "halo effect" and "generosity error". "Halo effect" refers to the situation where ratings are influenced by a rater's positive feeling towards the person they are rating. "Generosity error" refers to the situation in which a rater gives higher ratings than they otherwise might. This generally occurs when a rater does not have enough information to make an objective rating and as a result, the ratee benefits from any doubt that may exist, with a high rating (Gay, 1981).
Another problem associated with rating scales is when "trait type" scales are used. Often the dimensions used in trait type scales are ambiguous. This results in threats to the internal validity of the instrument. Smith and Kendall (1963) and Campbell (1973) argue that these problems can be overcome through the use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. The strength of these scales is in the level of precision and specificity that occurs in the procedure for design and construction. Firstly, identified items for rating are at all times defined in specific behavioral terms. In addition, the scales measure performance, rather than behavioral or effectiveness. Campbell et. al. (1973) specify that performance is behavior that occurs in a specific context. Effectiveness is also not measured with the scale. The reason being that effectiveness is influenced by too many variables out of the control of an individual. As Campbell et. al. (1973, 15) maintain:
"The crucial distinction between performance and effectiveness is that the latter does not refer to behavior directly but rather it is a function of additional factors not under the control of the individual."
THE PROCEDURES
In utilizing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales, the following process needs to be undertaken:
1. Generation of expert panels. Two panels of "experts" who, due to their knowledge and experience in the area of study, are able to design an instrument to assess quality performance.
2. Designing a questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale of "competencies" required to measure performance.
3. Validating the instrument by sending the questionnaire to a wide sample.
4. Analysis of the results.
Advantages:
- These types of rating scales are particularly effective for assessing competencies, skills, and abilities.
- BARS rating scales are highly valid and job-related because important job requirements are covered.
- Objective benchmarks are provided against which observations can be rated, therefore, there is less rating error than when using other types of scales (e.g., numeric).
Cautions:
- BARS scales take some time and effort to create and usually cannot be used for job types other than those for which they were developed.
Developing a BARS Scale:
- Using subject matter experts, identify examples of job performance behaviors reflecting all different levels of effectiveness ranging from ineffective to superior for all the different parts of the job. These are key indicators only. It is not required to be an exhaustive list of every possible criterion. You may have already identified these behaviors when you conducted your job analysis to establish the qualifications and competencies. If so, use them here.
- Examples are then clustered by content and categories of job performance and ranked according to importance.
- Major, essential, or core criteria are distinguished from those that are minor or secondary within the group.
- Decide how many points will be awarded and how irrelevant or incorrect responses will be scored. A wrong answer should result in a failing grade.
- Assign marks that reflect the relative importance of the question and the competency being assessed.
- The scale may be multiplied by a factor to increase the overall weighting. For example, a 5-point scale is multiplied by a factor of 4 to increase the weight of the assessment to 20 points in the overall competition.
With Regards,
Kenneth
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am not sure about the acronyms being used in the appended excel file but generally they are in this order: Poor Needs Improvement Meet Expectations Exceed Expectations Outstanding
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
All of a sudden, this thread has enlivened after eight years!
The Limitations of BARS
BARS is old hat. It measures behavior, and the interpretation of behavior is always subject to bias or even manipulation. Likes and dislikes influence the rating. That is why the world has moved toward a quantitative rating. Rather than rating the behavior, it is better to rate the outcome of the behavior that is in tangible form. Businesses run on numbers. Investors invest based on anticipated returns. They do not look at the behavior of the CEO and draw satisfaction from the returns they get.
Let me give you an example that I have mentioned in my earlier replies. Suppose a Purchase Manager is due to handle project purchases. For this, he conducts thorough market and vendor research. This market information gives him an edge in negotiations, and he negotiates very effectively to contrive a win-win outcome. Since he works at his desk and conducts negotiations in boardrooms, his boss might not be aware of the spadework done by the Purchase Manager. Therefore, there is a possibility of overlooking the competencies of the Purchase Manager by his boss, who could be the CFO or CEO. Against this backdrop, who will be responsible for the wrong rating of the Purchase Manager?
Above all, while rating behavior, talking parrots are given prominence over flying parrots. There are smart individuals in this world who know very well how to manipulate the behavior of others. Let us not ignore this fact!
Pros and Cons of BARS
The article does not take into account the demerits of BARS completely. It merely mentions in a line how time-consuming BARS is. I checked the internet and found the following pros and cons of BARS:
http://www.dummies.com/business/huma...rating-scales/
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Limitations of BARS
BARS is old hat. It measures behavior, and the interpretation of behavior is always subject to bias or even manipulation. Likes and dislikes influence the rating. That is why the world has moved toward a quantitative rating. Rather than rating the behavior, it is better to rate the outcome of the behavior that is in tangible form. Businesses run on numbers. Investors invest based on anticipated returns. They do not look at the behavior of the CEO and draw satisfaction from the returns they get.
Let me give you an example that I have mentioned in my earlier replies. Suppose a Purchase Manager is due to handle project purchases. For this, he conducts thorough market and vendor research. This market information gives him an edge in negotiations, and he negotiates very effectively to contrive a win-win outcome. Since he works at his desk and conducts negotiations in boardrooms, his boss might not be aware of the spadework done by the Purchase Manager. Therefore, there is a possibility of overlooking the competencies of the Purchase Manager by his boss, who could be the CFO or CEO. Against this backdrop, who will be responsible for the wrong rating of the Purchase Manager?
Above all, while rating behavior, talking parrots are given prominence over flying parrots. There are smart individuals in this world who know very well how to manipulate the behavior of others. Let us not ignore this fact!
Pros and Cons of BARS
The article does not take into account the demerits of BARS completely. It merely mentions in a line how time-consuming BARS is. I checked the internet and found the following pros and cons of BARS:
http://www.dummies.com/business/huma...rating-scales/
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Competency mapping.ppt
ART AND SCIENCE OF COMPETENCY MAPPING.doc