Module 2 Backgroundsocial Media And Hr Behavioral Anchored Rating S ✓ Solved

Module 2 - Background SOCIAL MEDIA AND HR; BEHAVIORAL ANCHORED RATING SCALES; SIMULATION TRAINING Staffing Required Material Davenport, T. H. (2012). Case study: Social media engages employees. FT.Com, Retrieved from the Trident Online Library. Facebook, Blogs & the Boss: The intersection of social media & the workplace. (2013).

Retrieved from Wild About Trial (2015). Legal Smart with Alison Triessl—Social Media & Employment. Retrieved from . 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. Nov., 2014). How Facebook recruits.

Retrieved from Optional Material Segal, J. A. (2014). The law and social media in hiring. HR Magazine, 59 (9), 70-72. Retrieved from ProQuest in the Trident Online Library.

Segal, J. A., & LeMay, J., S.P.H.R. (2014). Should employers use social media to screen job applicants? HR Magazine, 59 (11), 20-21. Retrieved from ProQuest in the Trident Online Library.

Skill Boosters (2015). Top 5—Social media fails at work. Retrieved from . Swain, K. (2017). The impact of social media in the workplace pros and cons.

Retrieved from . Walden, J. A. (2016). Integrating Social Media Into the Workplace: A Study of Shifting Technology Use Repertoires. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 60 (2), .

Available in the Trident Online Library. Wright, A. D. (2014). More states prohibit social media snooping. HR Magazine, 59 (10), 14.

Retrieved from ProQuest in the Trident Online Library. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales Required Material Behaviorally Anchored Rating Systems—BARS. Retrieved from Govekar, P. & Christopher, J. Assessing academic advising using behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS). Example.

Retrieved from Optional Material Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) Guide. Retrieved from Simulation Training Required Material Abernathy, D., Allerton, H., Barron, T., & Salopek, J. (1999). Everyday simulation. Training & Development, 53 (11), 37. Available in the Trident Online Library.

AusBusiness Traveller (2011). Inside REAL Qantas 747 Flight Simulator HD. Retrieved from . (for Discussion Forum) (AusBusiness Traveller, 2011) Hiringsimulation.com (2017). Why Job Simulation Works. Optional Material Catling, C., Hogan, R., Fox, D., Cummins, A., Kelly, M., & Sheehan, A. (2016).

Simulation workshops with first year midwifery students. Nurse Education in Practice, 17 , . Available in the Trident Online Library. Lambert, C., and Lloyd-Jones, H. (2014). Run simulation in your workplace.

Education for Primary Care . 25(6), . Retrieved from BBSCOHost in the Trident Online Library. McMaster, S., Ledrick, D., Stausmire, J., & Burgard, K. (2014). Evaluation of a simulation training program for uncomplicated fishhook removal.

Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, 25, . Available in the Trident Online Library. Uptick in simulation training. (2013). Air Force Time , 3. Available in the Trident Online Library.

Module 2 – SLP SOCIAL MEDIA AND HR; BEHAVIORAL ANCHORED 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. "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.). 1. Expresses ideas clearly and concisely.

2. Answers questions completely and precisely. Speaks with a voice that exhibits an appropriate command presence. 3. 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). 4. Clearly enunciates words. Attentively leans forward.

5. Voices ideas randomly or several at a time. 6. Interrupts others inappropriately. Excessive use of filler words, phrases (umm, like I said, etc.) 7.

Fails to listen to questions asked by role player(s). Uses incorrect words or grammar in responding to questions. 8. Takes too long without making a point. 9.

Uses profanity. Problem Analysis & Resolution: Ability to critically evaluate a situation, gather and analyze relevant information, identify underlying issues, assess alternative solutions, and to consider the implications of problems and potential solutions. 1. Identifies possible resources to resolve problem. Deals with problems before they worsen.

2. Ensures a follow up plan is established. Develops alternative approaches to deal with the problem. Verbalizes the impact on the organization as a whole (morale, operations, budget, etc.). Thoroughly considers relevant information.

3. Provides feasible solutions; considered feasibility of alternatives. Makes suggestions for resolving the problem. 4. Assures adherence to standards.

5. Is unable to support conclusions with facts or logic. 6. Fails to consider alternatives. 7.

Considers only a portion of the available information. Abdicates responsibility, blames others. 8. Waits until a problem has worsened before dealing with the problem. 9.

Fails to act. Source of the above examples: The City of Columbus, Civil Service Commission. Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS). Slide presentation retrieved from . SLP 2 Assignment: · Following the examples above, create a similar BARS instrument (based on your current position) with at least FIVE different areas of assessment.

Meet with a colleague or supervisor to have him or her evaluate your behaviors. Discuss the results with your colleague/supervisor to figure out where you scored highest and where you scored lowest. · Write a paper discussing the following issues: · Your results · The process you went through · How your instrument can be adjusted for optimal results · What the strengths and weaknesses of BARS are · How the feedback from the BARS can help an individual improve over time · How BARS compares to two other performance appraisal processes · Other recommendations you may have This pragmatic approach will help you get into the routine of continuously being evaluated. You will submit both the BARS instrument that you created and the paper.

Bring in at least 2 library sources to help strengthen your discussion. Your paper should be at least 2-3 pages , (not including the cover sheet and reference list). Deal with these issues in an integrated fashion, not as a series of individual questions. SLP Assignment Expectations Demonstrate critical thinking and analysis of the relevant issues and HRM actions, drawing on your background reading and research. Information Literacy: Evaluate resources and select only library/Web-based resources that provide reliable, substantiated information.

Give authors credit for their work. Cite sources of borrowed information in the body of your text as footnotes or numbered end notes, or use APA style of referencing. Prepare a paper that is professionally presented (including a cover page, a list of references, headings/subheadings, and a strong introduction and conclusion). Proofread carefully for grammar, spelling, and word-usage errors.

Paper for above instructions

Introduction

In the evolving landscape of human resource management (HRM), accurate and constructive employee evaluations are paramount. The method chosen for performance appraisal can significantly influence both employee growth and overall organizational effectiveness. This paper explores the use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) as an evaluation instrument. It discusses the results obtained through a self-assessment using BARS, the process conducted in collaboration with a supervisor, and recommendations for optimizing the methodology. Additionally, the strengths and weaknesses of BARS are analyzed, its feedback mechanism for personal improvement is evaluated, and comparisons with other performance appraisal processes are made.

Understanding BARS

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) combine elements of qualitative and quantitative assessment to provide a robust framework for performance evaluation. Unlike traditional rating systems that often rely solely on subjective rankings, BARS allows for specific and observable behaviors that exemplify different levels of performance, serving as anchors for evaluations (Colquitt, Lepine, & Wesson, 2011).

Development of BARS Instrument

As part of the assignment, I created a BARS instrument tailored to my role as a project coordinator. The instrument focuses on five distinct areas of assessment:
1. Communication Skills: Measures clarity and effectiveness in conveying information.
2. Problem Solving: Assesses the ability to analyze situations and develop practical solutions.
3. Team Collaboration: Evaluates the effectiveness in working with team members towards a common goal.
4. Time Management: Assesses efficiency in managing time and meeting deadlines.
5. Conflict Resolution: Evaluates the ability to address and resolve conflicts within the team.
Each assessment area was broken down into performance levels, with detailed descriptions of effective and ineffective behaviors associated with each level.

The Evaluation Process

Upon finalizing the BARS instrument, I engaged in a structured feedback session with my supervisor. The dual-faceted process involved self-evaluation followed by the supervisor’s assessment using the same BARS criteria. This collaborative approach was instrumental in comparing perceptions of my performance levels.

Results of the BARS Evaluation

The evaluation revealed strengths in communication skills and time management, which were aligned with the highest performance ratings. Ratings suggested that I consistently articulately expressed ideas and adhered to deadlines. Conversely, the assessment highlighted conflict resolution as an area requiring improvement. It was noted that while I could identify conflicts, I sometimes hesitated to intervene decisively to resolve them.

Adjustments for Optimal Results

To adapt the BARS instrument for optimal results, several considerations emerged from the feedback session:
1. Increased Specificity: While the current behaviors were beneficial, further specificity (e.g., examples of conflict scenarios) would improve clarity.
2. Regular Updates: Continuous modifications to the assessment criteria could reflect changing job requirements and team dynamics.
3. Training: Providing training sessions on effective feedback techniques would help supervisors offer clearer evaluations.

Overview of Strengths and Weaknesses of BARS

BARS presents several strengths, including:
- Improved Objectivity: BARS provides clearer standards, reducing ambiguity in rating (Wilkie & Wright, 2014).
- Focused Feedback: The specific behavioral examples facilitate constructive feedback for employee development.
However, there are notable weaknesses:
- Time-Consuming: Developing a comprehensive BARS system requires significant initial investment in time and resources (Swain, 2017).
- Possible Overreliance on Observed Behaviors: There can be potential blind spots for behaviors that are significant but may not be easily observed (Segal & LeMay, 2014).

Feedback and Individual Improvement

The feedback derived from the BARS evaluation serves as a cornerstone for personal growth. Clear delineation of effective and ineffective behaviors allows me to focus on tangible areas of development. For instance, the feedback identified specific conflict resolution strategies, such as approaching conflicts proactively and employing mediation techniques, which will be essential for my professional growth.
As Davenport (2012) noted, leveraging social media platforms in HR can also facilitate continuous feedback mechanisms, rendering evaluations like BARS more dynamic and responsive.

Comparison to Other Performance Appraisal Processes

When comparing BARS to traditional performance appraisal methods like General Rating Scales and 360-degree feedback, notable distinctions arise:
- General Rating Scales typically rely on a single rating without specific behavioral anchors, leading to ambiguity and potential subjectivity in performance assessment (Walden, 2016).
- 360-degree feedback incorporates perspectives from various stakeholders but can overwhelm and confuse employees due to contrasting viewpoints (Hiringsimulation.com, 2017).
In contrast, BARS balances objective metrics with qualitative insights, thereby promoting comprehensive employee development.

Conclusion

Utilizing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales provides a structured and effective approach to performance evaluation that emphasizes observable behaviors and fosters employee growth. The collaborative evaluation process highlighted key areas for improvement while reinforcing strengths, effectively illustrating the real-world applicability of BARS in organizational settings. While certain weaknesses exist, with careful adjustments, BARS can contribute significantly to refining HRM practices. Regular reviews and enhancements based on feedback will ensure this tool remains relevant and effective in promoting high performance.

References

1. Abernathy, D., Allerton, H., Barron, T., & Salopek, J. (1999). Everyday simulation. Training & Development, 53(11), 37.
2. Davenport, T. H. (2012). Case study: Social media engages employees. FT.com.
3. Hiringsimulation.com. (2017). Why Job Simulation Works.
4. Segal, J. A., & LeMay, J., S.P.H.R. (2014). Should employers use social media to screen job applicants? HR Magazine, 59(11), 20-21.
5. Swain, K. (2017). The impact of social media in the workplace pros and cons.
6. Walden, J. A. (2016). Integrating Social Media Into the Workplace: A Study of Shifting Technology Use Repertoires. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(2).
7. Wilkie, D., & Wright, A. (2014). Balance risks of screening social media activity. HR Magazine, 59(5), 14.
8. Wright, A. (2014). How Facebook recruits. Retrieved from ProQuest.
9. Wright, A. D. (2014). More states prohibit social media snooping. HR Magazine, 59(10), 14.
10. Colquitt, J.A., Lepine, J.A., & Wesson, M.J. (2011). Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.