BARS is a performance appraisal method that combines the benefits of critical incidents and quantitative ratings. It evaluates employees against specific, observable behaviors anchored to a numerical scale—typically 5 to 9 points. Each scale point describes a real behavioral example of performance, ranging from “Unsatisfactory” to “excellent.” For instance, for “customer handling,” a 5 might be “calmly resolves complaints,” while a 1 is “ignores or argues with customers.” Developed using job analysis and expert input, BARS enhances objectivity, reduces rater bias, and provides clear feedback for improvement. However, it is time-consuming and expensive to develop for each unique role.
Origin and Development of the BARS Technique:
1. Origin of BARS
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) were developed to overcome limitations of traditional performance appraisal methods. The technique emerged during the 1960s when researchers and organizations sought more objective methods for evaluating employee performance. Traditional rating scales often depended on general traits such as initiative, attitude, or dependability, which could be interpreted differently by different evaluators. BARS addressed this problem by linking rating levels with specific examples of employee behaviour. The approach was influenced by research in critical incident techniques and behavioural measurement. Its main purpose was to make performance ratings more specific, observable, and job related.
2. Development of BARS
The development of BARS involved identifying important behaviours that represented effective and ineffective job performance. Experts, supervisors, and employees were asked to identify critical incidents describing successful and unsuccessful work behaviours. These incidents were then grouped into relevant performance dimensions. Different levels of effectiveness were established for each dimension, and specific behavioural examples were used as anchors for each rating level. This process created a rating scale based on observable workplace behaviour rather than general personal characteristics. BARS therefore provided evaluators with clearer standards and reduced ambiguity in judging employee performance.
Purpose of BARS in Performance Appraisal:
a) Reducing Rater Bias and Subjectivity
BARS is designed to minimize rater bias and subjectivity by anchoring performance ratings to specific, observable behaviors rather than vague, generalized traits like “good” or “average.” Since each point on the scale is defined by concrete behavioral examples, supervisors have clearer reference points when evaluating employees, reducing personal interpretation differences. For example, instead of rating “communication skills” subjectively, a BARS scale describes exact behaviors distinguishing excellent from poor communication. This purpose is particularly valuable in organizations with multiple raters evaluating similar roles, ensuring greater consistency across departments. By grounding assessments in observable actions, BARS significantly reduces the influence of personal biases, halo effects, or inconsistent standards among different evaluators.
b) Providing Clear Performance Standards
BARS serves the purpose of establishing clear, unambiguous performance standards by explicitly describing what specific behaviors constitute different performance levels for each competency being evaluated. This clarity helps both supervisors and employees understand precisely what actions or behaviors are expected to achieve various performance ratings. For example, a BARS scale for a customer service role explicitly states what constitutes excellent versus poor complaint resolution behavior. This transparency eliminates ambiguity often present in traditional rating scales, where employees may not understand exactly what differentiates a rating of four from a rating of three. Clear standards also facilitate more productive performance discussions, as feedback is grounded in specific behavioral examples rather than abstract judgments.
c) Enhancing Feedback Quality and Developmental Value
BARS aims to improve the quality and developmental value of performance feedback by providing employees with specific, behavior-based examples rather than generic ratings, making it easier to understand areas requiring improvement. Since the scale describes actual workplace behaviors, employees receive actionable insights into what changes are needed to achieve higher performance ratings in future evaluation periods. For example, an employee rated below expectations on teamwork can review the BARS descriptions to understand exactly which collaborative behaviors need improvement. This purpose transforms performance appraisal from a purely evaluative exercise into a constructive developmental tool, helping employees translate abstract performance dimensions into concrete, achievable behavioral goals for professional growth.
d) Improving Legal Defensibility of Appraisals
BARS serves the important purpose of enhancing the legal defensibility of performance appraisal decisions, particularly relevant for promotion, compensation, or termination-related determinations that organizations must justify if legally challenged. Because ratings are based on specific, documented behavioral criteria developed through systematic job analysis rather than subjective supervisor opinions, organizations can better demonstrate that appraisal decisions were fair, job-related, and non-discriminatory. For example, if an employee disputes a termination decision, BARS documentation showing specific behavioral shortfalls provides stronger evidence than vague subjective ratings. This purpose is particularly important in litigation-prone environments, where organizations, especially multinational corporations, need robust, defensible appraisal systems to withstand potential legal scrutiny regarding employment decisions.
Structure of BARS:
a) Job Analysis and Identification of Critical Dimensions
The structure of BARS begins with a thorough job analysis to identify the critical performance dimensions relevant to a specific role, such as communication, problem-solving, teamwork, or technical competence. This step typically involves subject matter experts, supervisors, and experienced job incumbents who collaboratively determine which behavioral dimensions genuinely differentiate effective from ineffective performance. For example, developing BARS for a customer service role would require identifying dimensions like complaint handling, product knowledge, and interpersonal communication. This foundational step ensures the resulting scale is grounded in actual job requirements rather than generic performance categories, making subsequent behavioral anchors relevant and meaningful for accurately assessing employee performance within that specific role.
b) Generating Critical Incidents
Once performance dimensions are identified, the next structural component involves collecting numerous critical incidents, specific examples of both effective and ineffective employee behavior, from supervisors and experienced employees familiar with the role. These incidents describe actual observed behaviors rather than personality traits or vague characteristics, capturing real workplace situations across a range of performance levels. For example, incidents for a sales role might include specific examples like “followed up with client within 24 hours” versus “failed to return client calls for a week.” This step generates the raw behavioral data that will later be refined and organized into distinct rating levels, ensuring the scale reflects genuine, observable workplace conduct.
c) Retranslation and Clustering of Incidents
The retranslation process involves a separate group of evaluators independently sorting and clustering the collected critical incidents into the previously identified performance dimensions, verifying that incidents are correctly categorized and clearly linked to their intended dimension. Incidents that raters cannot consistently assign to the correct dimension are eliminated, ensuring only clear, unambiguous examples remain in the final scale. For example, an incident describing punctuality might be mistakenly clustered under “reliability” rather than “time management” by different raters, indicating it requires clarification or removal. This validation step enhances the accuracy and reliability of the final BARS instrument by confirming that behavioral examples genuinely represent their assigned performance dimension.
d) Scaling Incidents and Assigning Ratings
After retranslation, the validated critical incidents are assigned numerical values or scale points, typically ranging from one to seven or one to nine, representing different levels of performance from poor to excellent for each dimension. A separate group of raters evaluates and scores each incident based on how effectively it represents the performance level it depicts, with statistical techniques used to determine the final scale value and eliminate incidents with high rating disagreement. For example, an incident might receive an average rating of 6.2 on a seven-point scale, indicating strong but not perfect performance. This structural step transforms qualitative behavioral descriptions into a quantifiable, structured rating instrument.
e) Developing the Final BARS Instrument
The final structural component involves compiling the validated and scaled critical incidents into a complete, organized rating instrument, with each performance dimension displaying a vertical scale anchored by specific behavioral statements at various points along the continuum. Typically, five to nine behavioral anchors are selected per dimension, evenly distributed to represent the full range of performance from poor to excellent, providing raters with clear reference points during evaluation. For example, the final instrument for “teamwork” might display distinct behavioral statements at each scale point, guiding supervisors to select the description that most closely matches observed employee behavior, thereby completing the structured, standardized appraisal tool.
Example of BARS:
a) BARS for Communication Skills (Customer Service Role)
Consider a BARS developed for evaluating communication skills among customer service representatives, illustrating how behavioral anchors correspond to specific rating levels. At the highest level (rating 7), the anchor states “proactively explains complex policies in simple terms and confirms customer understanding before ending the call.” At a moderate level (rating 4), the anchor reads “answers customer queries adequately but occasionally uses technical jargon without clarification.” At the lowest level (rating 1), the anchor states “interrupts customers frequently and fails to address the actual concern raised.” This example demonstrates how BARS translates abstract communication skills into specific, observable behaviors, allowing supervisors to select the description matching an employee’s actual demonstrated conduct during evaluation.
b) BARS for Teamwork (Sales Department)
In a sales department, a BARS scale for teamwork might illustrate varying degrees of collaborative behavior anchored at different points. At the excellent level (rating 7), the anchor describes “voluntarily shares leads with teammates and mentors new joiners without being asked.” At an average level (rating 4), the description reads “cooperates with team members when directly requested but rarely initiates collaboration independently.” At the poor level (rating 1), the anchor states “withholds client information from colleagues and refuses to assist team members during high workload periods.” This example shows how BARS captures the full spectrum of teamwork behavior, from proactive collaboration to counterproductive withholding, providing sales managers clear behavioral benchmarks.
c) BARS for Punctuality and Reliability (Manufacturing Role)
For a manufacturing shop-floor role, a BARS scale for punctuality and reliability might anchor high performance (rating 7) as “arrives fifteen minutes before shift start and proactively informs supervisor of any potential delays in advance.” A moderate rating (rating 4) might state “arrives on time consistently but occasionally forgets to update supervisors about minor schedule changes.” The lowest rating (rating 1) could describe “frequently arrives late without prior notice, disrupting production schedules and requiring colleagues to cover responsibilities.” This example illustrates how BARS applies effectively even to seemingly straightforward dimensions like punctuality, transforming a simple attendance record into a nuanced behavioral assessment that accounts for communication and reliability.
d) BARS for Problem-Solving (IT Support Role)
An IT support technician’s BARS for problem-solving might anchor exceptional performance (rating 7) as “independently diagnoses complex system issues and implements permanent solutions, documenting fixes for future reference.” A satisfactory rating (rating 4) might state “resolves standard, common issues effectively but requires escalation support for complex, non-routine problems.” The lowest rating (rating 1) could describe “applies temporary workarounds without addressing root causes, resulting in recurring complaints from the same users.” This example highlights how BARS for technical roles can distinguish between employees who merely fix immediate symptoms versus those who demonstrate deeper diagnostic and preventive problem-solving capabilities, offering IT managers precise criteria for evaluating technical competence.
