Scribd
Upload
7 views

My Task 21.edited

human resource management

Uploaded by

chris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views

My Task 21.edited

human resource management

Uploaded by

chris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

What are BARS, and how are they used?

This rating scale uses "statements" of behaviour instead of general adjectives on regular rating

scales. BARS are also known as Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. With the BARS

technique, an employee's performance is evaluated against particular instances of conduct rated

numerically to gather data on the employee's performance.

To improve the correctness of a student's grade, teachers assign specific actions for evaluation.

Since each job in an organization has its own distinct set of behaviours that need to be evaluated,

you depend on universally appropriate behaviours. Preliminary studies have shown the

subjectiveness of basic rating measures may be reduced by utilizing rating scales with particular

work behaviours. To determine whether it's real, we're going to investigate this further.

For now, let's take a look at some instances of BARS.

Examples

 A customer service representative's job is the one being evaluated.

 Assuming the agent "answers the phone with a polite welcome" after one to two rings, a

category four rating could be assigned.

 A representative with a category six rating may be assumed to "answer phone after One

ring with the suitable business greeting.”

Its common practice for an employee to be rated on how quickly and courteously they answer the

phone, using a typical rating system asking, "1-never, 2-non frequent, 3-from time to time, 4-
frequently, 5-always." It's easy to understand how the more precise BARS approach will affect

the appraisal's conclusion.

A nurse's performance is being evaluated:

 A nurse who receives a level 4 rating may be seen as "empathetic."

 A level six rating may imply that the nurse "demonstrates better understanding and

empathy in all interactions with the patient's family."'

A waiter's job is the one being evaluated.

 Waiters at this level of service are expected to "chat on the phone while taking orders."

 According to a level 4 assessment, it is assumed that the server "makes eye contact with

clients throughout every transaction."

Waiters at a level 6 establishment may be expected to "welcome guests with a smile and provide

recommendations from the menu depending on personal preferences."

In other words, what are the positives and negatives?

Despite the usefulness of these examples, not all aspects of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales

are flawless. One should weigh the pros and cons before deciding whether or not to make the

switch.

The following are some of the advantages of employing the BARS strategy:

1. It's simple to use, which is always a plus. Evaluating an employee is significantly less

complicated because the standards on which they are judged are clearly defined.
2. It's based on how you act. In the end, the purpose of an employee's evaluation is to help

them perform better. Knowing more about how people behave and why they do it gives a

company a new perspective on improving.

3. It is unbiased. The BARS assessment procedure seems to be more equitable because of

its emphasis on conduct.

4. It's a one-of-a-kind experience. An organization's performance management may be

tailored to each employee's specific role with the help of BARS.

The following are drawbacks of using the BARS strategy:

1. It takes a long time to complete. A business with a wide variety of positions would have

to spend a significant amount of time and money building a customized experience for

each part.

2. It may be costly. The value of time cannot be overstated. It may not be practicable in the

near term for smaller firms with different functions.

3. It needs a highly motivated management staff. All of the appraisal's assertions and

anchors must be written. It's a lot of work, and supervisors will need to be engaged

heavily.

4. It might be said to have a propensity towards favouritism. An assessment can be

discriminatory; however, BARS immediately eliminates this possibility. Some argue that

we can still make the leniency mistake.

Who should use it?

When weighing the benefits and drawbacks of employing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales,

it becomes clear that this approach is best suited to more influential organizations with the
financial wherewithal to see the project through to completion. As a result, the organization must

establish precise time and commitment requirements for its executives.

Instead of having many separate roles, the organization should have groupings or divisions of

comparable tasks. If you run into issues with bias in your present performance management

method, BARS may still be a helpful tool for assessing personnel.

Because of their focus on conduct, these assessments are impartial and difficult to sway.

To be successful, you need a plan.

It is strongly suggested that you thoroughly examine BARS before incorporating it into your

performance management strategy. It would be best if you had a thorough grasp of the process to

implement it correctly for your own company. Having a team on board is also essential.

Managers must be heavily engaged, as previously said. The steps listed below will aid in the

creation of the final product:

1. Compile a list of examples of good and bad conduct in the workplace. It is pretty

uncommon for people to make use of the Critical Incident Technique.

2. Analyze data in terms of performance by using behavioural examples.

3. Have SMEs adapt their findings around their performance metrics.

4. Use a five-to-nine-point scale to rate the remaining behaviours.

5. To have SME consensus on behaviour evaluations, throw out the higher deviating

requirements.

6. As a result, adjust the final scale to reflect this.

You might also like