It is more common for employees to be evaluated using what could be termed “individual methods.” Individual methods involve evaluating an employee by himself/herself. However, even though ratings are made individually, apprais- als using individual methods may still make comparisons of one individual employee’s rating with individual ratings of other employees. We will begin our discussion of individual methods with the most widely used method of performance rating: graphic rating scales.
Graphic rating scales
The vast majority of performance appraisals use graphic rating scales, which offer predetermined scales to rate the worker on a number of important aspects of the job, such as quality of work, dependability, and ability to get along with coworkers. A graphic rating scale typically has a number of points with either numerical or verbal labels, or both. The verbal labels can be simple, one-word descriptors, or they can be quite lengthy and specific (see Figure 6.2). Some graphic rating scales use only verbal endpoints, or anchors, with numbered rating points between the two anchors.
When graphic rating scales are used in performance assessment, apprais- als are usually made on anywhere from 7 to 12 key job dimensions, which are derived from the job analysis. Better graphic rating scales define the dimensions and the particular rating categories very clearly and precisely. In other words, it
individual methods performance appraisal methods that evaluate an employee by himself or herself, without explicit reference to other workers
graphic rating scales performance appraisal methods using a prede- termined scale to rate the worker on impor- tant job dimensions
F I G U R E 6 . 1
A Forced Distribution Performance Rating Using Five Categories with a Sample of 50 Employees
Fr
equency
Distribution
Number of employees to be placed in each category based upon 50 employees Highest 10% 5 Lowest 5 10% Middle 20 40% Next 10 20% Next 10 20%
is important that the rater know exactly what aspect of the job is being rated and what the verbal labels mean. For instance, in Figure 6.2 examples f and i define the job dimension, whereas example h defines the rating categories.
F I G U R E 6 . 2
Examples of Graphic Rating Scale
Source: Guion, R. M. (1965). Personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
(a) Quality High Low
(d) Quality
(e) Quality
(g) Quality
(h) Quality of work
(i) Quality of work (c) Quality
(b) Quality High Low
About average Occasional errors Almost never makes mistakes Work usually done in a superior way Quality is average for this job Work contains frequent flaws Work is seldom satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 (f) Performance factors Quality: Accuracy Economy Neatness Performance grade Consistently superior Sometimes superior Consistently average Consistently unsatisfactory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Poor Below average Average Above average Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Exceptionally high-quality workmanship Too many errors 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1
Rejects and errors consistently rare
Work usually OK; errors seldom made Work passable; needs to be checked often Frequent errors and scrap; careless
Judge the amount of scrap; consider the general care and accuracy of work; also consider inspection record.
Methods of Rating Performance 141 Although good graphic rating scales take some time to develop, often the
same basic scales can be used for a number of different jobs by simply switch- ing the relevant job dimensions. However, a common mistake made by many organizations is attempting to develop a “generic” set of performance rating scales for use with all persons and all jobs within the company. Because the relevant job dimensions change drastically from job to job, it is critical that the dimensions being rated are those that actually assess performance of the particular job. The major weakness of graphic rating scales is that they may be prone to certain biased response patterns, such as the tendency to give everyone “good” or “average” ratings. Also, limiting ratings to only a few job dimensions may constrain the appraiser and may not produce a total picture of the worker’s job performance.
Behaviorally anchored rating scales
An outgrowth of the critical incidents method of job analysis is the development of
behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), which attempt to clearly define the scale
labels and anchors used in performance ratings (Smith & Kendall, 1963). Rather than having scale labels such as poor, average, or good, BARS have examples of behavioral incidents that reflect poor, average, and good performance in relation to a specific dimension.
Figure 6.3 presents a behaviorally anchored rating scale for appraising the job of Navy recruiter on the dimension of salesmanship skills. Note first the very detailed definition of the job dimension at the top of the scale. On the left are the rating points ranging from 8 to 1. The verbal descriptors to the right of each category give examples of behavioral incidents that would differentiate a recruiter’s sales skills, from highest levels to lowest.
As you might imagine, the development of BARS is a lengthy and tedious process. The result, however, is a rating instrument that focuses clearly on performance behaviors relevant to a particular job. An appraiser is forced to spend a great deal of time just thinking about what adequate or inadequate performance of a certain job dimension entails, particularly if the rater had a hand in developing the scale. This increased attention to job behaviors helps to overcome some of the general biases and stereotyping that may occur in other performance ratings, for a worker cannot be summarily judged without consideration of how the person’s past behavior supports the rating.
Behavioral observation scales
A performance assessment technique related to the BARS is behavioral
observation scales (BOS). With this method, raters indicate how often the
worker has been observed performing key work-related behaviors (Latham & Wexley, 1977). Whereas BARS focus on expectations that a worker would be able to perform specific behaviors that are typical of certain performance lev- els, behavioral observation scales concentrate on critical behaviors that were actually performed. Bear in mind that behavioral observation scales do not involve the direct observation and assessment of performance behaviors, but rather the recollections of the observers, who may be biased or selective in
behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) performance appraisal technique using rat- ing scales with labels reflecting examples of poor, average, and good behavioral incidents
behavioral observation scales (BOS)
performance appraisal methods that require appraisers to recall how often a worker has been observed performing key work behaviors
what they remember. Studies have compared behavioral observation scale and graphic rating scale assessments of performance and showed that employ- ees preferred the BOS method (Tziner, Joanis, & Murphy, 2000; Tziner, Kopelman, & Joanis, 1997).
Checklists
Another individual method of performance rating is the use of checklists, which consist of a series of statements about performance in a particular job. The statements are derived from a job analysis and can reflect either positive or negative aspects of performance (see Figure 6.4). The rater’s task is to check off the statements that apply to the worker being evaluated. Each of the state- ments is given a numerical value reflecting the degree of effective performance associated with it. The numerical values assigned to the checked items are then summed to give an overall appraisal of the worker’s performance.
A variation of checklist rating is the forced-choice scale, developed in an attempt to overcome the rater’s tendency to give generally positive or nega- tive performance appraisals. While using the forced-choice technique, the rater is unaware of how positive an appraisal is being made. This format presents
checklists
performance appraisal methods using a series of statements about job performance
Job: Navy Recruiter
Job dimension: Salesmanship skills
Skillfully persuading prospects to join the Navy, using Navy benefits and opportunities effectively to sell the Navy; closing skills; adapting selling techniques appropriately to different prospects; effectively overcoming objections to joining the Navy.
8 A prospect stated he wanted the nuclear power program or he would not sign up. When he did not qualify, the recruiter did not give up; instead, he talked the young man into electron- ics by emphasizing the technical training he would receive.
7 The recruiter treats objections to join the Navy seriously; he works hard to counter the objections with relevant, positive arguments for a Navy career.
6 When talking to a high school senior, the recruiter mentions names of other seniors from that school who have already enlisted.
5 When an applicant qualifies for only one program, the recruiter tries to convey to the appli- cant that it is a desirable program.
4 When a prospect is deciding on which service to enlist in, the recruiter tries to sell the Navy by describing Navy life at sea and adventures in port.
3 During an interview, the recruiter said to the applicant, “I’ll try to get you the school you want, but frankly it probably won’t be open for another three months, so why don’t you take your second choice and leave now.”
2 The recruiter insisted on showing more brochures and films even though the applicant told him he wanted to sign up right now.
1 When a prospect states an objection to being in the Navy, the recruiter ends the conversa- tion because he thinks the prospect must not be interested.
F I G U R E 6 . 3
A Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)
Source: Borman, W. C. (1987). Behavior-based rating scales. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Performance assessment: Methods and applications (p. 103). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Methods of Rating Performance 143
groups of descriptive statements from which the rater must select the one that is either most or least descriptive of the worker. The statements carry different values that are later added to form the overall performance appraisal.
Although checklists are easy to use and provide detailed appraisals of performance that are focused on job-related behaviors, they do have some drawbacks. The development of such techniques is expensive and time con- suming, requiring the generation of applicable work-related statements and the assignment of accurate performance values. Also, checklists may limit the focus of a performance appraisal, because the rater must choose among a finite set of statements that might not capture all aspects of an individual’s performance of a particular job.
Narratives
A relatively simple form of individual performance evaluation is the use of
narratives, which are open-ended, written accounts of the worker’s performance
or listings of specific examples of performance strengths and weaknesses. The advantage of narratives is that appraisers have the freedom to describe performance in their own words and to emphasize elements that they feel are important. Their major drawback is that they offer no quantification of per- formance, which makes it very difficult to compare workers’ performance. An additional problem with narratives is that the worker may misinterpret the meaning of the report. For example, an appraiser may write that the worker is doing a “fair job,” meaning that some improvement is needed, but the worker may interpret the word “fair” to mean “adequate” or “good,” and may thus believe that no improvement is necessary.
Stop & Review
List and define three comparative meth- ods of performance appraisal. narratives open-ended written accounts of a worker’s performance used in performance appraisals Instructions: Below you will find a list of behavioral items. Read each item and decide whether
it describes the person being evaluated. If you feel the item does describe the person, place a check mark in the space provided. If the item does not describe the person, leave the space next to the item blank.
1 Regularly sets vague and unrealistic program goals
2 Is concerned only with the immediate problems of the day and sees very little beyond the day-to-day
3 Develops work schedules that allow for completion of projects provided no major problems are encountered
4 Is aware of needs and trends in area of responsibility and plans accordingly 5 Follows up on projects to ensure that intermediate goals are achieved 6 Looks for new markets and studies potential declines in current markets
7 Anticipates and plans for replacement of key personnel in the event of corporate relocation
F I G U R E 6 . 4
A Checklist Rating Scale for a Project Manager
Source: Jacobs, R. R. (1987). Numerical rating scales. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Performance assessments: Methods and applications (pp. 82–99). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Note: This is only a portion of the checklist. Scores are derived based on the number of items checked and the
We have seen that there are quite a number of methods for rating employee job performance, but what works best? All forms of ratings suffer from the same limitation: They are subjective, and thus prone to the unique perspective and biases of the person doing the rating. No one method of rating performance has emerged as superior to the others. However, a key issue is the focus of the rater’s attention on actual job performance (see DeNisi & Peters, 1996). Therefore, methods that focus raters on performance-related job behaviors— the BARS and BOS methods—should theoretically improve rater accuracy.