Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS): A Complete Guide to Modern Performance Appraisal

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS), sometimes referred to as behavioral expectancy scales, are performance rating tools in which each scale point is defined by specific examples of effective and ineffective behavior. These behaviors are “anchored” to the scale so that each point represents a clear, descriptive statement of conduct, ranging from the poorest to the highest level of performance. The rater’s task is to select the behavioral description that most closely matches the employee’s actual performance.

BARS are designed to combine the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative methods of evaluation. They assess an employee’s performance by comparing it against specific examples of behavior. These examples are organized into categories and assigned a numerical value, which forms the basis for scoring performance. This approach produces ratings that are both measurable and descriptive.

The development of BARS arose from the problems of unfavorable and inconsistent performance evaluations that were common in earlier decades. In the 1920s and beyond, many traditional rating methods produced vague, biased, or unreliable results. By the 1960s, some organizations began seeking a more objective system.

This led to the creation of BARS — a method that describes several distinct levels of behavior for each performance dimension. For every dimension, such as “judgment” or “customer relations,” the scale presents specific behavioral examples ranging from poor to excellent performance.

BARS combine the strengths of three appraisal elements:

• Narratives describing actual performance.
• Critical incidents capturing significant examples of effective or ineffective work behavior.
• Quantified ratings that assign numerical values to those behaviors.

The numeric scale is anchored by these concrete behavioral descriptions, ensuring that raters evaluate performance based on observable actions rather than vague impressions. Supporters argue that BARS offers more accurate, fair, and equitable appraisals than many other methods discussed to date.

Developing BARS

Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) typically involves five steps:

1. Generating critical incidents – Critical incidents are behaviors that are essential for performing a job effectively. People who are knowledgeable about the job in question — such as job holders and/or supervisors — are asked to describe specific examples of effective and ineffective performance. These critical incidents may be written in a few short sentences or phrases, using the terminology of the job.
2. Developing performance dimensions – The critical incidents are grouped into a smaller set of categories, called performance dimensions (usually 5 to 10). Each cluster or dimension is then clearly defined so that it represents a distinct aspect of job performance.
3. Reallocating incidents – The critical incidents are then reclassified by another group of people who also know the job well. These individuals reassign the incidents to the dimensions created in Step 2. Incidents that receive between 50% and 80% agreement on their placement are retained; those that fall outside this range are either revised or discarded.
4. Scaling incidents – The same second group rates each behavior described in the retained incidents for its level of effectiveness or ineffectiveness on the appropriate dimension, using a 7–9 point scale. The average effectiveness rating for each incident is calculated, and these scores help determine which incidents will be included as behavioral anchors in the final scales.
5. Developing the final BARS instrument – A subset of incidents, usually six or seven for each performance dimension, is selected as the behavioral anchors. These anchors are placed along a vertical scale to create the final BARS instrument for performance appraisal (see Figure 27-5).

Example – Suppose we are developing BARS for a grocery store checker. Several critical incidents involving the handling of customer purchases (e.g., dealing with chicken) might be grouped into the following performance dimensions:

• Information and judgment
• Conscientiousness
• Skill in human relations
• Ability in the operation of the sign-up
• Talent in bagging
• Organizational capacity of the check stand work
• Skill in monetary transactions
• Observational ability

For one dimension, such as “knowledge and judgment”, BARS can be developed by anchoring each point on the scale with a specific behavioral example.

Example: BARS for Appraising a Grocery Checker’s Job – Knowledge and Judgment

Performance Dimension: Knowledge and Judgment – the ability to recognize pricing accuracy, apply store procedures, and make sound checkout decisions.

Advantages and Limitations of the BARS Method

The BARS method of performance appraisal is often considered superior to traditional appraisal methods because it offers several advantages:

• A more accurate gauge of performance
• Clearer performance standards
• Better feedback for employees
• Greater consistency in evaluation

However, BARS is not without limitations. Research indicates that it can still suffer from distortions inherent in most rating scales. Studies have concluded that while BARS holds promise, current research does not strongly support claims of complete scale independence.

In short, although BARS may outperform conventional rating techniques, it is clear that it is not a perfect solution for achieving high interrater reliability.

Example Performance Anchors – Grocery Checker (“Knowledge and Judgment”)

First-rate performance (7 – Extremely Good Performance)

• By knowing the price of items, this checker would be expected to look for mismarked and unmarked items.
• This checker is aware of products whose prices frequently change.

Good performance (6)

• This checker is expected to know the various sizes of cans.

Slightly poor performance (5)

• When unsure, this checker would ask another clerk if the item is taxable.

Neither poor nor good performance (4)

• This checker is expected to verify with another checker any price discrepancy between the shelf and the marked price before ringing up the item.
• When operating the “Quick Check,” this checker can be expected to check out a customer with 15 items.

Slightly good performance (3)

• This checker may ask the customer for the price of an item they do not know.
• In the normal course of work, this checker may engage in long personal conversations with a customer or another checker.

Poor performance (2)

• To take a break, this checker may block off the checkstand while customers are still in line.

Extremely poor performance (1)

Performance Appraisal in Context

A performance evaluation system is a method of assessing and encouraging positive job performance. It serves as a tool for development, while also providing the basis for the organization to grant raises, promotions, or take corrective actions.

There are numerous appraisal techniques, including:

• Rating scales
• Essays
• Checklists
• Critical incident appraisals
• Work standards method
• Ranking methods

In the Management by Objectives (MBO) approach, performance is measured against the goals set collaboratively by the supervisor and the employee.

With the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) method, each score on the scale is illustrated with a narrative example of behavior, making the appraisal more concrete and behavior-focused.

Appraisal Strategies: Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

The Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) method begins by identifying the main performance dimensions of the job — for example, interpersonal relationships. The method then uses narrative information, such as from a critical incidents report, and assigns quantified ratings to each expected behavior.

For each performance category, there is a specific narrative describing what constitutes both “good” and “poor” behavior. The advantage of this system is that it focuses on the desired behaviors that are essential for successfully completing a task or performing a job.

BARS combines the visual simplicity of a graphic rating scale with the descriptive detail of the critical incidents method. For instance, the United States Army Research Institute developed a BARS scale to measure tactical thinking skills for combat leaders. Figure 11.4 (“Example of BARS”) shows how the military assesses these abilities.

Case Study

Scenario:
A customer service representative, Sarah, is being evaluated for her performance. She consistently receives excellent feedback from customers regarding her friendly demeanor but often struggles to resolve complex technical problems, requiring frequent escalation to supervisors.

Analysis using BARS:
When assessing Sarah’s problem resolution performance, the evaluator might rate her around a 3 on the BARS scale. This rating indicates that she can handle basic issues but struggles with more complex ones — matching the behavior observed in this case study.

Action Plan:

• Focused Development: Based on the BARS assessment, Sarah’s training plan should focus on building her technical knowledge and problem-solving skills so she can handle more complex customer issues independently.
• This may include in-depth product training, role-playing scenarios, and mentorship from experienced colleagues.

Feedback and Coaching:
Regular feedback sessions with her manager — using specific examples from the BARS — should be provided to:

• Highlight areas for improvement
• Reinforce her strengths in customer interaction

Key Points about BARS

• Specific Behavioral Descriptions:
  Each performance level is clearly defined by observable behaviors, making it easier to assess performance objectively compared to standard rating scales.
• Job-Relevant Criteria:
  BARS are developed using critical incidents and behaviors directly related to the job role, ensuring accurate performance evaluation in context.
• Employee Development Tool:
  By providing detailed feedback based on observable behaviors, BARS can guide targeted development plans to help employees improve performance.

Examples of Performance Appraisal Types

Scenario: Playing Favorites

You have just been promoted to manager of a high-end retail store. While reviewing your responsibilities, you receive a message from HR outlining the performance review process. You are also informed that you must conduct two performance evaluations within the next two weeks.

This concerns you because you do not yet know the employees or their capabilities. You are unsure whether to base their evaluations on the short period you have observed them or to ask other employees for their opinions on their peers’ performance.

As you review the files left on the computer, you find a critical incident report prepared by the previous manager. However, it becomes clear that the former manager had “favorite” employees, raising doubts about whether you should rely on this information for your evaluations.

How would you handle this situation?
A fair approach would be to:

• Conduct your own observations over the two weeks, focusing on objective behaviors.
• Supplement with factual, job-related documentation rather than personal opinions.
• Avoid relying solely on the previous manager’s records if they appear biased.
• Consider gathering balanced feedback from multiple sources to ensure fairness.

Benefits and Disadvantages of Common Performance Appraisal Methods

BARS Examples

Customer Service:

• Level 1: Rarely listens to customers, interrupts, and does not ask clarifying questions.
• Level 2: Occasionally listens to customers but often interrupts or fails to ask clarifying questions.
• Level 3: Generally listens to customers, asks clarifying questions, but sometimes interrupts.

Software Development:

• Level 1: Knows Java basics but cannot complete tasks without guidance.
• Level 3: Has a working knowledge of Java and can work on projects with supervision.
• Level 5: Can independently start and complete a Java project.

Nursing:

• Level 4: Shows sympathy to patients.
• Level 6: Consistently demonstrates empathy and ensures it is evident in all patient interactions.

BARS helps organizations ensure they are evaluating employees against relevant and consistent criteria that support their strategic goals. Examples of behavior rating tools include the Achenbach Scales, Conner’s Instruments, Behavior Rating Profile (BRP-2), Burk’s Behavior Rating Scales (BBRS), and the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2).

In conclusion, the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) offers a structured and fair way to assess employee performance using clear, job-specific behavioral examples. To dive deeper into BARS and other modern HR tools, check out our HR Generalist Certification program. For free HR knowledge resources, tips, and insights, don’t forget to follow us on our YouTube channel.