Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)- Assessing Performance Through Specific Behaviors
Training
In healthcare administration, a strong focus on performance assessment is vital for ongoing improvement and attaining high standards. This paper explores the application of Behavioral Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) in assessing the performance of a healthcare administrator. The discussion will encompass the assessment outcomes, the methodology employed, modifications for optimal outcomes, the merits and drawbacks of BARS, the significance of feedback in personal growth, a comparison with alternative performance appraisal methods, and supplementary suggestions.
Results and Process
After implementing the BARS instrument, I received evaluations in five areas: oral communication, problem analysis and resolution, leadership, resource allocation, and proactive measures (Davenport, 2012; The American Law Journal, 2013). The evaluation required a colleague or supervisor to assess my actions as the administrator using predetermined criteria for each aspect. The process was thoughtful and collaborative, with discussions held with the evaluator to gain valuable insights into areas of strength and areas that required improvement.
Adjustments for Optimal Results
Fine-tuning the BARS instrument is crucial for achieving optimal results. One key aspect to focus on is enhancing the precision of behavioral anchors. Providing more precise explanations of successful and unsuccessful actions improves the dependability of the evaluation (Wild About Trial, 2015). In addition, including a self-assessment component can offer a comprehensive perspective, bringing together personal perspectives and external evaluations. Regular calibration sessions with evaluators can help establish a uniform understanding of behavioral anchors, promoting consistency in assessments.
Strengths and Weaknesses of BARS
BARS provides a comprehensive and behavior-oriented assessment, offering concrete illustrations of successful and unsuccessful behaviors. The level of detail in this feedback dramatically enhances its usefulness for personal growth and development (Davenport, 2012; The American Law Journal, 2013). Nevertheless, the inherent weaknesses lie in the subjectivity of interpretation and the potential bias in evaluations. The success of the process hinges on the evaluator’s capacity to evaluate behaviors precisely and may not be adaptable enough to capture changing job roles.
Feedback and Individual Improvement
Feedback from BARS is a valuable tool for personal growth and development. By identifying particular behaviors, employees can concentrate on specific areas for improvement. The feedback mechanism promotes a culture of ongoing improvement, ensuring that personal and organizational objectives are in sync. As the administrator, equipped with insightful feedback, I can customize professional development plans, focusing on identified growth areas.
Comparison with other Performance Appraisal Processes
BARS stands out from traditional or graphic rating scales when evaluating performance by offering a more detailed and behavior-focused assessment. It provides a comprehensive grasp of performance dimensions, making it a valuable tool for professional development. On the other hand, in comparison to Management by Objectives (MBO), BARS might not have the same goal-oriented emphasis, which could potentially restrict its effectiveness in aligning individual performance with organizational objectives.
Recommendations
Incorporating 360-degree feedback processes into BARS can enhance the evaluation process by gathering input from colleagues, subordinates, and supervisors (Wilkie & Wright, 2014; Wright, 2014). Incorporating technology to provide immediate feedback and track assessments can significantly improve the efficiency of the process. Consistent training sessions for evaluators on the correct implementation of BARS can help reduce biases in interpretation and enhance the dependability of assessments.
Conclusion
Behavioral Anchored Rating Scales provide a robust method for evaluating performance, particularly in healthcare administration. By engaging in a thoughtful and ongoing process, administrators can use feedback to enhance constantly. The advantages of BARS lie in its thorough and behavior-centered assessment, offering a guide for professional growth. However, recognizing its limitations, the thorough and focused approach of BARS is a valuable asset in the quest for excellence in healthcare administration.
References
Davenport, T. H. (2012). Case study: Social media engages employees. FT.Com, Retrieved from the Trident Online Library.
The American Law Journal. (2013, January 2013). Facebook, Blogs & The Boss: The Intersection of Social Media & the Workplace. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/PRrJ9eINYZI.
Wild About Trial. (2015, September 11). Legal Smart with Alison Triessl—Social Media & Employment. [Video].YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d26eEzr5KuI.
Wilkie, D., & Wright, A. (2014). Balance risks of screening social media activity. HR Magazine, 59(5), 14. Retrieved from ProQuest in the Trident Online Library.
Wright, A. (2014, November). How Facebook recruits. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/technology/articles/pages/how-facebook-
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Module 2 – SLP
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HR; BEHAVIORAL ANCHORED RATING SCALES; SIMULATION TRAINING
Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) directly assess performance behaviors. The BARS method depends on critical incidents or short descriptions of effective and ineffective behaviors that ultimately produce a number value. The assessor is responsible for rating the specific behaviors of an employee based upon the behavioral expectations that are provided as anchors. When rating the employee, most employers prefer to also provide written feedback for why the employee received a specific rating.
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)- Assessing Performance Through Specific Behaviors
“Typically, supervisors rate several performance dimensions using BARS and score an employee’s overall job performance by taking the average value across all the dimensions” and “because the critical incidents convey the precise kinds of behaviors that are effective and ineffective, feedback from BARS can help an employee develop and improve over time.”
Source of the quote above Colquitt, J.A., Lepine, J.A., & Wesson, M.J. (2011). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Note: This textbook is not available from the Trident Online Library).
Behavioral Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
Two Assessment Area Examples:
Oral Communication: Organizes thoughts and expresses them in a clear and logical manner, quickly comprehends another’s meaning, uses appropriate vocabulary, correct grammar, and appropriate non-verbal communication (gestures, etc.).
Expresses ideas clearly and concisely.
Answers questions completely and precisely. Speaks with a voice that exhibits an appropriate command presence.
Relates thoughts in an organized manner. Gives concise answers to questions. Demonstrates effective active listening behaviors (e.g., leans forward, nods in agreement, repeats statements back, verbalizes understanding).
Clearly enunciates words. Attentively leans forward.
Voices ideas randomly or several at a time.
Interrupts others inappropriately. Excessive use of filler words and phrases (umm, like I said, etc.)
Fails to listen to questions asked by role player(s). Uses incorrect words or grammar when responding to questions.
Takes too long without making a point.
Uses profanity.