Graphic Rating Scale


Scaling Method
‡ Graphic Rating Scale 
This is the oldest and most widely method

used for performance appraisal 
A scale that allows the rater to indicate an

employee¶s performance on a variety of job behaviors. 
The Rating Scale is a form on which the

manager simply checks off the employee¶s level of performance.

Performance Dimensions
Quantity of work Quality of work Interpersonal skills Judgment Attitude Cooperation knowledge Managerial skills Initiative Problem solving Creativity Intelligence etc«..

Graphic Rating Scales
(Category Ratings)

1 2 3 4 5 Poor Below Average Average Above Average Outstanding (Unsatisfactory) (Fair) (Satisfactory) (Good)


© 2008 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.


Who Conducts rating
Supervisors rating their employees


Employees rating their superiors

Sources of Performance Measurment
Outside sources rating employees Team members rating each other

Employees rating themselves

Who Evaluates, When, and How Often
Most organizations evaluate on an annual basis 
Performance evaluations are

often scheduled for random dates, such as the date of hire  Alternatively, all employees may be evaluated on or near a single calendar date  The evaluation can be at the end of the task cycle

Advantages of the rating scales
‡ Graphic rating scales are less time consuming to develop ‡ They also allow for quantitative comparison. ‡ Many organizations use graphic rating scales because they are easy to use and cost little to develop ‡ HR professionals can develop such forms quickly

Graphic Rating Scale Drawbacks
‡ Restrictions on the range and type of rater responses ‡ Differences in rater interpretations of scale item meanings and scale ranges ‡ Graphic rating scales also fail to provide a good mechanism for providing specific, nonnonthreatening feedback

Errors or Problems in rating
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Halo effects Leniency Strictness Central tendency Personal bias Recency Bias Contrast Effect





CRITERIA RELIABILITY ACCEPTABILIT SPECIFICITY Y Depends on rates, but usually no measure of agreement used Usually low; can be improved Usually high Moderate; easy Very low to develop and use but resistant to normative standard High; easy to Very low develop and use

Comparative Poor, unless

Cab be high if manager ratings are done takes time to carefully make link



Usually low; requires manager to make link Can be quite high

Usually low; can be fine if developed carefully Usually high; minimizes contamination and deficiency Usually high; can be both contaminated and deficient


Very high


Very high

High, but can be contaminated and deficient

High; main problem can be test-retest depends on timing of measure High

Moderate; difficult to develop, but accepted well for use High; usually developed with input from those to be evaluated

Very high

High regarding results, but low regarding behaviors necessary to achieve them

High regarding results, High; usually but low regarding developed with input from those to behaviors necessary to achieve them be evaluated

Performance Evaluation Problems

No technique is perfect; they all have limitations

Thank You


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful