Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale: Expert Guide With Examples
Being able to effectively evaluate employee performance is the cornerstone of effective performance management, yet it often suffers from subjectivity and inconsistency.
One method that stands out for its structured and evidence-based approach is the behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS).
By integrating qualitative examples of real workplace behavior with quantitative ratings, BARS helps provide a clearer, more objective framework for measuring employee performance reviews.
Whether you're designing a new evaluation system or refining an existing one, BARS shouldn’t be a scorecard alone. It should spark real conversations: “You’re currently here. Let’s talk about what the ‘next level’ looks like.”
Based on my experience implementing BARS in multiple multinational organizations, I’ll share my process and best practices for making the most of it in your org.
What is a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale?
A behaviorally anchored rating scale is a structured performance appraisal method that evaluates employees based on specific behaviors linked to various levels of job performance.
Commonly used when conducting performance reviews (but when done well will bleed into everyday coaching and decision-making), the scale blends the quantitative clarity of traditional numerical rating scales with the qualitative richness of behavioral examples, creating a hybrid system that reduces ambiguity and subjectivity.
At its core, BARS operates on the idea that assessing employee performance shouldn’t be judged solely by general traits (e.g., "dependability" or "initiative") but by observable and verifiable actions that distinguish between levels of effectiveness in a particular role.
For each performance dimension—such as communication, teamwork, or problem-solving—the scale defines several levels (usually 1 to 5 or 1 to 7), and each level is anchored with a behavioral statement that describes what performance at that level looks like in action.
For example, instead of rating an employee on "problem-solving" with a vague score from 1 to 5, BARS might define:
- 5: "Independently analyzes complex problems and implements solutions that improve team efficiency."
- 3: "Solves common problems with occasional support from others."
- 1: "Struggles to identify issues or frequently needs assistance with routine tasks."
This extra level of detail makes BARS especially valuable in roles where performance is nuanced or where fairness and transparency are critical. It helps:
- Employees understand expectations.
- Supervisors justify and explain ratings with evidence.
- HR teams maintain consistency across departments.
In essence, BARS enhances the accuracy and credibility of performance evaluations by grounding them in the reality of day-to-day work behaviors.
Advantages And Disadvantages Of BARS
A good BARS doesn’t just measure behavior—it gives teams a shared language for excellence.
So much of performance failure comes from misalignment e.g. differing definitions of what terms like collaboration, ownership, and strategic thinking actually mean. BARS, when done right, clears that up.
However, like any performance evaluation tool, BARS brings a unique balance of benefits and limitations that organizations must weigh before implementation.
Understanding the strengths and drawbacks of BARS can help HR professionals and managers decide if it’s the right fit for their workforce, and how best to design or improve it for long-term impact.
Advantages
1. Increased objectivity
By anchoring each rating with clearly defined, observable behaviors, BARS reduces the subjectivity often associated with performance evaluations.
This helps eliminate vague judgments based on personality or perception and instead focuses attention on actual performance.
2. Clarifies performance expectations
Workers can see exactly what behaviors constitute excellent, average, or poor performance for each competency.
This transparency not only improves accountability but also empowers underperforming workers to self-assess and improve.
3. Improves rater reliability
When raters use specific behavioral examples as guides, their assessments tend to be more consistent across teams or departments.
This is especially useful in large organizations where multiple managers are evaluating similar roles, aiding in calibrating performance across the org.
4. Useful for feedback and development
Since the behavioral anchors are descriptive, they make feedback more actionable. Instead of saying “You need to improve communication,” a manager can say “Let’s work toward the behavior at level 4, which involves proactively clarifying tasks with stakeholders.”
5. Legally defensible
In the event of disputes or legal challenges, BARS provides clear, job-relevant documentation of performance. This objectivity and alignment with actual duties make it a safer and more compliant method from a legal perspective.
Disadvantages
1. Time-consuming development
Creating a BARS tool requires significant investment in time and resources. It involves conducting job analyses, gathering critical incidents, writing precise behavioral anchors, and validating the tool—often with input from multiple stakeholders.
2. Challenging to maintain
Because job roles evolve, BARS needs to be updated regularly to stay relevant. This maintenance burden can be high, particularly in fast-changing industries or organizations undergoing frequent restructuring.
4. Requires rater training
Despite the clarity of behavioral anchors, managers still need structured training to ensure consistent and fair application of the scale. Without proper calibration, even a well-designed BARS can yield inconsistent results across raters.
5. Resource intensive
Developing BARS at scale—for multiple roles across departments—can be resource-prohibitive for smaller organizations or those lacking in-house HR expertise.
It’s a system best suited to organizations willing to invest in thoughtful performance management.
Examples of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales
1. Customer service representative
Competency: Customer service
- 5 (Excellent): Greets every customer by name, uses positive language, and follows up to ensure satisfaction.
- 3 (Competent): Politely greets customers, answers questions accurately, and closes the interaction courteously.
- 1 (Needs Improvement): Rarely greets customers, provides minimal information, and ends calls abruptly.
Competency: Problem solving
- 5: Independently resolves complex customer issues and proactively identifies root causes.
- 3: Resolves common issues using standard procedures; escalates unfamiliar problems appropriately.
- 1: Struggles with common issues and frequently escalates minor concerns without attempting resolution.
Competency: Initiative
- 5: Anticipates customer needs and offers solutions before issues arise.
- 3: Responds to requests as they come but rarely takes proactive steps.
- 1: Waits for direction and fails to act without prompting.
2. Team Leader
Competency: Communication
- 5: Regularly communicates goals and feedback clearly; adapts messaging to different audiences.
- 3: Shares updates as needed; occasionally provides feedback to team members.
- 1: Provides limited or unclear communication, causing confusion within the team.
Competency: Team motivation
- 5: Consistently fosters a positive team environment and encourages collaboration.
- 3: Maintains team morale and addresses conflicts when they arise.
- 1: Ignores team dynamics and fails to address disengagement.
Competency: Accountability
- 5: Takes ownership of team outcomes and holds others to high standards through regular check-ins.
- 3: Completes responsibilities and addresses team issues when prompted.
- 1: Avoids responsibility and shifts blame for poor performance.
3. Software Developer
Competency: Technical quality
- 5: Writes clean, efficient code with minimal bugs and fully adheres to documentation standards.
- 3: Produces functional code with some issues; documentation is adequate.
- 1: Frequently writes buggy code and provides little to no documentation.
Competency: Collaboration
- 5: Actively participates in code reviews, offers support to teammates, and communicates clearly during sprints.
- 3: Attends meetings and participates when asked; occasionally reviews peer code.
- 1: Rarely contributes to team discussions or peer reviews.
Competency: Innovation and initiative
- 5: Proposes new technical solutions, refactors legacy systems, and contributes to long-term architecture improvements.
- 3: Suggests incremental improvements when prompted; focuses on current project scope.
- 1: Avoids taking initiative and sticks strictly to assigned tasks without suggesting enhancements.
How to Develop a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale
Building an effective BARS system requires more than just listing job duties—it demands a deep understanding of what high and low performance actually look like in action.
By combining job analysis, real-world behavioral examples, and structured rating levels, BARS development ensures performance assessments are fair, relevant, and actionable.
Here’s a step-by-step guide outlining how to design and implement a BARS that aligns with your organization’s roles, values, and performance expectations.
1. Conduct a comprehensive job analysis
The foundation of any BARS system is a clear understanding of the role.
- Objective: Identify the core duties, skills, and responsibilities of the job.
- How:
- Observe employees in the role.
- Review job descriptions and performance data.
- Conduct interviews or surveys with subject matter experts (SMEs), managers, and high performers.
- Output: A list of key competencies required for successful performance (e.g., problem-solving, teamwork, communication).
2. Identify critical incidents
This step focuses on gathering specific examples of effective and ineffective behaviors.
- Objective: Define real-world situations that illustrate different levels of job performance.
- How:
- Ask SMEs to describe incidents where someone performed exceptionally well or poorly.
- Use the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) to collect a wide range of behaviors across each competency.
- Output: A bank of realistic behaviors categorized by success or failure.
3. Group incidents into performance dimensions
Now organize the critical incidents into performance categories or dimensions.
- Objective: Align behaviors with core job competencies.
- How:
- Sort similar incidents under broader categories like "Customer Focus," "Technical Accuracy," or "Leadership."
- Ensure each category reflects a unique aspect of the role.
- Output: A structured list of job-relevant competencies tied to critical behaviors.
4. Develop behavioral anchors
Transform the grouped incidents into behavioral statements that correspond to performance levels.
- Objective: Create scale points (e.g., 1–5 or 1–7) with behaviors that "anchor" each rating.
- How:
- Write clear, specific, and observable statements for each level of performance.
- Use consistent language across competencies (e.g., "rarely," "occasionally," "consistently").
- Example (Teamwork):
- 5: "Consistently facilitates collaboration and resolves conflicts constructively."
- 3: "Participates in team activities but occasionally avoids difficult conversations."
- 1: "Rarely contributes to team goals and often creates tension with others."
5. Validate the scale
Before implementation, ensure your scale is accurate and fair.
- Objective: Test the reliability and relevance of your BARS.
- How:
Pilot the BARS with a small group of evaluators.- Gather feedback on clarity, usability, and consistency.
- Adjust any confusing or redundant anchors.
- Output: A validated BARS instrument ready for broader use.
6. Train evaluators
Even the best tool fails without trained users.
- Objective: Ensure raters apply the scale consistently and without bias.
- How:
- Conduct training sessions with real examples.
- Emphasize the importance of rating based on behavior, not traits or personal impressions.
- Practice calibration by having multiple raters assess the same examples and compare results.
- Output: A confident and consistent group of raters.
7. Implement and monitor
Deploy the scale in real performance reviews and observe its impact.
- Objective: Ensure it functions effectively at scale.
- How:
- Introduce BARS alongside coaching or feedback tools.
- Collect feedback from users and subjects after evaluations.
- Update the scale annually or when job roles evolve.
- Output: A dynamic, behavior-driven evaluation system that grows with your organization.
Alternatives To BARS
While BARS can be a powerful tool for structured and behavior-based evaluations, it’s not the only option—there are several other performance rating scales and appraisal methods that may be more appropriate depending on your organization’s goals, size, and culture.
1. Graphic Rating Scale (GRS)
GRS is a simple numerical scale used to rate employee traits or competencies (e.g., 1 to 5 for "communication").
Advantages over BARS:
- Quick and easy to implement.
- Minimal training required for raters.
Disadvantages compared to BARS:
- Lacks behavioral specificity, which can lead to rater bias.
- Employees may find ratings vague or unhelpful for development.
2. 360-degree feedback
Gathers performance feedback from multiple sources—peers, subordinates, supervisors, and sometimes clients.
Advantages over BARS:
- Provides a well-rounded view of performance from different perspectives.
- Encourages self-awareness and continuous feedback.
Disadvantages compared to BARS:
- Can become subjective or political without clear behavior-based anchors.
- More time-consuming and potentially overwhelming for raters and recipients.
You can read more about 360 feedback in our guide to 360 feedback.
3. Management by objectives (MBO)
Assesses employees based on how well they meet predefined, measurable goals.
Advantages over BARS:
- Highly results-oriented and goal-focused.
- Encourages alignment with organizational objectives.
Disadvantages compared to BARS:
- Doesn’t evaluate how the work was done—only whether it was done.
- Less useful for roles where outcomes are hard to quantify (e.g., support or creative roles).
4. Ranking scale
A comparative method where employees are ranked relative to one another, either overall or by specific competencies (e.g., from top to bottom performer in a team).
Advantages over BARS:
- Easy to use in small teams or during talent calibration meetings.
- Helps identify top performers and performance gaps when subjective ratings are inflated or compressed.
Disadvantages compared to BARS:
- Doesn’t indicate why someone is ranked lower; no behavioral data is captured
- Creates competition rather than collaboration, especially in teams.
5. Likert scale
A scale (usually 1 to 5 or 1 to 7) used to measure attitudes or perceptions, where respondents rate agreement with statements such as “This employee demonstrates initiative.”
Advantages over BARS:
- Likert scales are widely understood and quick to complete.
- Useful for measuring perceptions in 360-degree feedback, engagement surveys, or self-assessments.
Disadvantages compared to BARS:
- Without behavior-based anchors, the meaning of a “4” or “agree” can vary widely across raters.
- Doesn’t clearly describe what performance looks like, making it less actionable.
- Tends to produce overly positive scores unless carefully calibrated.
7 BARS Best Practices
I’ve worked with plenty of organizations that want to adopt behaviorally anchored rating scales and somehow expect it to magically fix performance management. But it’s not the scale, it’s how you use it.
To get the most out of BARS, it's important to go beyond the scale itself and think strategically about how it’s developed, implemented, and maintained.
The following best practices help ensure that your BARS system is fair, consistent, and meaningful for both managers and employees.
1. Involve subject matter experts (SMEs) early
Engaging SMEs during the development process ensures the behaviors you capture are realistic and relevant.
Their firsthand experience helps anchor ratings in actual job performance rather than assumptions, resulting in a more accurate, accepted, and credible BARS system.
2. Use clear and observable behavior statements
Each rating level should describe a specific, visible action—not vague attributes or personality traits.
This helps reduce subjectivity and ensures that different raters interpret the scale similarly. It also gives employees clearer, more actionable feedback.
3. Limit the number of competencies
Focus on 5–7 core performance dimensions to keep evaluations manageable and focused. Too many categories can dilute the quality of ratings and overwhelm both raters and employees. A lean, targeted scale supports higher-quality conversations and easier calibration.
4. Train managers to use the scale consistently
Even the best-designed BARS system will fail if managers interpret it differently. Training should include calibration exercises, examples, and guidance on rating bias. Consistent application across departments builds trust in the fairness of evaluations.
5. Run a pilot
Run a pilot for one department before rolling it out across the company. This allows HR to collect feedback regarding the process, identify any confusing issues, and change any behavioral anchors that may need changing.
6. Encourage employee self-assessments
As Marlo Ramirez, career coach at Jobtest points out, “Performance reviews are a two-way street. Giving employees the chance to assess themselves using the BARS scale not only makes the process feel more balanced, but it also encourages them to reflect on their own growth.
Have employees rate their behaviors before the review meeting and then discuss any differences with their manager. This kind of dialogue helps create a more open, constructive conversation and can uncover insights that might otherwise be missed.”
7. Review and update the scale regularly
Jobs evolve, and so should your BARS. Review the relevance of each behavioral anchor annually or whenever a role’s scope changes. Updating the scale ensures continued alignment with business goals and employee responsibilities.
Useful Tools
Tools like performance management software can be very helpful when incorporating BARS into your performance review process.
For example, these tools can facilitate the gathering and organization of behavioral examples, both positive and negative, that are relevant to specific job roles or performance dimensions.
The software can also assist in translating the collected behavioral examples into clear and measurable performance dimensions and help in creating and managing the BARS itself.
Once BARS is developed, the software can facilitate the performance review process, making it easier for managers and HR professionals to administer and evaluate employee performance based on the defined behavioral anchors.
10 Best Performance Management Software
Here's my pick of the 10 best software from the 10 tools reviewed.
Subscribe To The People Managing People Newsletter
For more on BARS and performance management, subscribe to our weekly newsletter for HR and business leaders. You’ll receive all our latest content to help you grow in your career and make greater impact in your org.
