Using BARS to Measure Quality Work in an Organization

Definition of Quality Work

Describe When And How The Scale Will Be Used

When Will Data Be Collected Throughout The Work Day? Multiple Times? One Time?

Who Will Complete The Scale? How Will They Be Trained?

Describe The Scoring Procedure / How Scores Will Be Calculated

Describe The Target Outcome Of The Bars.

What Is The Overall Purpose? b. How Will It Help The Organization?

The term quality work refers to achieving the level of expectation within a positive and ethical work environment. It is the way to putting effort for the service to ensure organizational success. Hence, there are several factors to ensure quality of work by the employees for the sake of the organization. It includes safe and effective job performance with timely manner. Performing the job responsibilities with less errors (Goetsch & Davis, 2014). Assuring excellent performance for the sake of the organization. Quality of work refers to performing the job to set the standard that is crucial in the case of warehouse operations. It is always refers to doing the right things within and without the organization. On the other hand, the quality work should be completely dedicated towards providing customer satisfaction (Allahbakhs et al., 2013). It is the way to take pride from the standard of the company and leading for a bright future. An employee with excellent capability to provide quality work for the organization can also attract and motivate the other employees of the organization and provide equal effort for organizational performance (Bonacin & Bonacin, 2016). Apart from these, quality of work is the process to ensure that the employees are following the procedure of the organizational culture and standards. Providing 110% for the organization is the minimum criteria that ensure quality work by the workforce.

To measure the quality work of the employees, the personnel can be provided with 3 out of 5. Behavioral anchored rating scale (BARS) is designed to bring profits from both qualitative and quantitative data for the process of performance appraisal of the employees (Martin-Raugh et al., 2016). It is the process to compare the performance of the employees with the specific behavior that is anchored with numerical ratings. The employees will be considered possessing excellent timeliness with the following criterions. It includes a master of time management, performing on time and on target with the responsibility, creates more than one hour value of productivity within every hour, excellent in prioritizing the job responsibilities, assists the others in managing their time, creates the skills of time management within the fellow colleagues, streamlines the responsibilities and the procedures, possess excellent sense of time and timing, never miss the deadline (Kell et al., 2017). Apart from these, the other qualities to be considered for an excellent employee are – implement some strategies for time saving, perform with proper planning, does not compromise the quality of work for time management.

Developing The 5 Point Rating Scale

The reason for providing the 3 rating for the quality of work is the employees are competent in time management rather than excellent. The criterions that makes the employees competent are – completes the work within the time, they avoid any kind of wastage of time, build proper priorities, plan doable schedules, able to differentiate between the organizational responsibilities and personal responsibilities, effectively assign the responsibilities within the workforce, ensure commitment for the responsibilities to be done, and track the progress of the projects (Konak, Magluilo & Kulturel-Konak, 2016).

Measuring the tardiness of the employees, they can be given a 4 out of 5 in the rating scale. Time and regular attendance of the employees are the indicators of excellent performer of an organization. Hence, the employees will be thought to be tardy is they - fail to report at the workplace within the assigned time of the work (Lear et al., 2015). For this case, the managers will be replace the employee with tardiness for the full time shift. The employee leave the work or job responsibilities before the scheduled ending time will be considered as tardy employees. Along with this, employees taking expanded meal break without proper approval and the employees arrive late beyond the grace period also considered as tardy employees. The employees of the organization are provided 4 out of 5 in the behavioral dimension of tardiness for maintaining the following aspects. They are not observed with failure to clock in for the designated time clock at the starting or ending of their shift period. They are not observed with the failure to clock in their scheduled time clock for the lunch or snack break. Employees are not observed with the failure of reporting to the work without accuracy (Klieger et al., 2018). Finally, the employees are not observed with clocking out lately considering the scheduled shift without initial approval.

Another reason to provide the rating is that the employees follow the sectional notification procedure in case of late arrival, absence, and planning for any vacation. Employees humbly request the supervisor for the sectional procedure for late and early arrival or leave approval prior to their shift timing. Along with this, the employees during the call for the notification, the employees conveys the message clearly about the cause of their absence or late arrival to ensure proper tracking of utilizing the leave and maintaining absenteeism (Călin, 2018). This helps the supervisors to monitor the attendance of the employees on daily basis and address the unacceptable attendance consistently.

Scoring Procedure of The Rating Scale

The BARS used mainly for the establishment of specific behaviors for rating which are meant to measure the efficiency or accuracy related to the performance. Both the qualitative and quantitative data will be collected yearly for relying original behavior needed for every individual position in an organization. The employees and supervisor will be trained before collecting data for the appraisal including the following aspects – the level five rating should assume the representative to answer the call with friendly greeting. The four rating will be assumed for the representative after answering the call with proper sheets.

BARS is a rating scale used to measure the system that rates an employee according to their performance and particular patterns of the behavior. It is designed to provide the profits from both the qualitative and quantitative information for the appraisal procedure organized by the company and make a comparative study of each individual of the workforce (Devcich et al., 2016). The first step of the procedure is to document the Critical Incident Techniques that compares the employee’s performance against some particular examples of behavior combined with the numerical ratings of 1 to 5. Then thee recruiter requires to develop the dimensions of the performance that need to be rechecked. The next step is the scaling of the crucial incidents that leads to develop the final instrument. Then the supervisor need to provide the suitable rating to the employees according the behavioral dimension called quality work.

The Behavioral anchored rating scale is purposefully designed for measuring the organizational performance (Bury, 2014). It can provide various benefits to the organization that includes

 Reliability as the appraisal remain the same even after drawing from different raters.

 The rating possess clear standards based on which an employee gets appraised.

 It provides an objective and measurable feedback.

The highly appraised employee of the organization will be provided with additional facilities from the organization. The employee will be provided with flexibility in the shift timing. The employee will be provided with the benefit of work from home weekly (Lear et al., 2015). These are the consequences that can motivate the other employees to achieve the highest qualities to be considered as the best employee measuring the dimension of quality work.

References

Allahbakhsh, M., Benatallah, B., Ignjatovic, A., Motahari-Nezhad, H. R., Bertino, E., & Dustdar, S. (2013). Quality control in crowdsourcing systems: Issues and directions. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(2), 76-81.

Bonacin, D., & Bonacin, D. (2016). Differential definition of quality school. Sports Science, 121-125.

Bury, M. (2014). A Critical Review of.

Călin, R. A. (2018). Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and Mixed Reality-Trends in Pedagogy. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, 5(1), 169-179.

Devcich, D. A., Weller, J., Mitchell, S. J., McLaughlin, S., Barker, L., Rudolph, J. W., ... & Frampton, C. M. (2016). A behaviourally anchored rating scale for evaluating the use of the WHO surgical safety checklist: development and initial evaluation of the WHOBARS. BMJ Qual Saf, 25(10), 778-786.

Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2014). Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson.

Kell, H. J., Martin‐Raugh, M. P., Carney, L. M., Inglese, P. A., Chen, L., & Feng, G. (2017). Exploring methods for developing behaviorally anchored rating scales for evaluating structured interview performance. ETS Research Report Series, 2017(1), 1-26.

Klieger, D. M., Kell, H. J., Rikoon, S., Burkander, K. N., Bochenek, J. L., & Shore, J. R. (2018). Development of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for the Skills Demonstration and Progression Guide. ETS Research Report Series, 2018(1), 1-36.

Konak, A., Magluilo, S., & Kulturel-Konak, S. (2016, March). Behaviorally anchored rating scales for teamwork peer assessment. In 2016 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 168-172). IEEE.

Lear, J., Godin, S., Werner, S., & Flamisch, M. (2015). Distributed Leadership: Behaviorally Anchored Development of the Instructional Teacher Leadership Rating Scale for Building School Capacity (ITLRSBSC). In Proceedings of the Canada International Conference on Education: CICE-2015. Infonomics Society. Mississauga, ON, Canada (pp. 158-164).

Martin-Raugh, M., Tannenbaum, R. J., Tocci, C. M., & Reese, C. (2016). Behaviorally anchored rating scales: An application for evaluating teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 414-419.