Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (Bars)

Question: What techniques discussed in this chapter did he seem to apply? Answer: The technique discussed in this chapter did Mr. Trump seem to apply is behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS). It is an appraisal method that aims at combining the benefits of narrative critical incidents and quantified ratings by anchoring a quantified scale with specific narrative example of good or poor performance. There are five steps required to developing the BARS which the first one is write critical incidents.On this step, it is required to ask persons who know the job (jobholders and/or supervisors) to describe specific illustrations (critical incidents) of effective and ineffective job performance. The second step is develop performance dimensions which people group the incidents into five or ten dimensions and then define each of the dimension. The example of the dimension is salesmanship skills, skill in monetary transactions, bagging skills, human relation skills and so forth.The third step of developing BARS is reallocate incidents that verify these groupings and have another team of people who also know the job reallocate the original critical incidents. From the second step and the critical incidents, a cluster definition has been concluded and must reassign each incident to the cluster which is fits best. For example, 50 per cent to 80 per cent of this second team assigns it to the same cluster as did the first group. The next step is scaling the incident which the second group were rate the behavior described by the incident as to know how effective or inefficiently it represents performance on the dimension.The last step of developing BARS is developing a final instrument which chooses about six to seven of the incidents as the dimension’s behavioral anchors. However, there are some advantages when developing the behaviorally anchored rating scale. The first one is more accurate gauge which people know and do the job and its requirements better than a nyone develop the BARS and finally was producing a good gauge of job performance. Secondly is has a clearer standards. The critical incidents along the scale illustrate what to look for in terms of superior performance, average performance, and so on.Meaning that, they will know how good they are in term of performance. Third advantage is getting the feedback which the critical incidents make it easier to explain the ratings to appraisees. Next advantage is it has independent dimensions. Clustering the critical incidents into five or six performance dimensions should help to make the performance dimensions more independent of one another. Lastly, consistency is the advantage where the BARS-based evaluations seem to be relatively reliable, in that different raters’ appraisals of the same person tend to be similar.