Like the field review, this technique was developed to reduce bias and establish objective standards of comparison between individuals, but it does not involve the intervention of a third party. Although there are many variations of this method, the most common one asked raters to choose form among groups of statement those which best fit the individual being rated and those which lest fit him. The statements are then weighted or scored, very much the way a psychological test is scored.
People with high scores are, by definition, the better employees; those with low scores are the poorer ones. Since the rater does not know what the scoring weights for each statements are, in theory at least, he cannot play favorites. He simply describes his people and someone in the personnel department applies the scoring weights to determine who gets the best rating.
The rationale behind this technique is difficult to fault.
It is the same rationale used in developing selection test batteries. In practice, however, the forced-choice method tends to irritate raters, who feel they are not being trusted. They want to say openly how they rate someone and not be second-guessed or tricked into making “honest” appraisals.
A few clever raters have even found ways to beat the system. When they want to give average employee a high rating, they simply describe the best employee the best they know. If the best employee is someone else, they describe him on that average persons forced-choice form.
An additional drawback is the difficult and cost of developing forms. Consequently, the technique is usually limited to middle and lower management levels where the jobs are sufficiently similar to make standard or common forms feasible.
Finally, forced-choice forms tend to be of little value and probably have a negative effect, when used in performance appraisal interviews.
People with high scores are, by definition, the better employees; those with low scores are the poorer ones. Since the rater does not know what the scoring weights for each statements are, in theory at least, he cannot play favorites. He simply describes his people and someone in the personnel department applies the scoring weights to determine who gets the best rating.
The rationale behind this technique is difficult to fault.
It is the same rationale used in developing selection test batteries. In practice, however, the forced-choice method tends to irritate raters, who feel they are not being trusted. They want to say openly how they rate someone and not be second-guessed or tricked into making “honest” appraisals.
A few clever raters have even found ways to beat the system. When they want to give average employee a high rating, they simply describe the best employee the best they know. If the best employee is someone else, they describe him on that average persons forced-choice form.
An additional drawback is the difficult and cost of developing forms. Consequently, the technique is usually limited to middle and lower management levels where the jobs are sufficiently similar to make standard or common forms feasible.
Finally, forced-choice forms tend to be of little value and probably have a negative effect, when used in performance appraisal interviews.