Constant Sum Scaling

Definition: The Constant Sum Scaling is a technique wherein the

respondents are asked to allocate a constant sum of units, such as points,
dollars, chips or chits among the stimulus objects according to some specified
criterion.

In other words, a scaling technique that involves the assignment of a fixed

number of units to each attribute of the object, reflecting the importance a
respondent attaches to it, is called as constant sum scaling. For example,
Suppose a respondent is asked to allocate 100 points to the attributes of a body
wash on the basis of the importance he attaches to each attribute. In case he
feels any attribute being unimportant can allocate zero points and in case some
attribute is twice as important as any other attribute can assign it twice the
points. The sum of all the points allocated to each attribute should be equal to
100.

Once the points are allocated, the attributes are scaled by counting the points
as assigned by the respondents to each attribute and then dividing it by a
number of respondents under analysis. Such type of information cannot be
obtained from rank order data unless it is transformed into interval data. The
constant sum scaling is considered as an ordinal scale because of its
comparative nature and lack of generalization.

One of the advantages of the constant sum scaling technique is that it allows a
proper discrimination among the stimulus objects without consuming too much
time. But however, it suffers from two serious limitations. First, the respondent
might allocate more or fewer units than those specified. Second, there might be
a rounding error, in case too few units are allocated. On the other hand, if a
large number of units are used then it might be burdensome on the respondents
and causes confusion and fatigue.

Definition: Graphic Rating Scale

Graphic Rating Scale is a type of performance appraisal method. In this method traits or behaviours that are
important for effective performance are listed out and each employee is rated against these traits. The rating helps
employers to quantify the behaviours displayed by its employees.
Ratings are usually on a scale of 1-5, 1 being Non-existent, 2 being Average, 3 being Good, 4 being Very Good and
5 being Excellent.

Characteristics of a good Graphic Rating scale are:

• Performance evaluation measures against which an employee has to be rated must be well defined.
• Scales should be behaviourally based.
• Ambiguous behaviours definitions, such as loyalty, honesty etc. should be avoided
• Ratings should be relevant to the behaviour being measured. For example, to measure “English Speaking Skill”
rates should be fluent, hesitant, and laboured instead of excellent, average and poor.

Example of a Graphic Rating Scale question:

How would you rate the individual in terms of quality of work, neatness and accuracy?
1. Non-Existent: Careless Worker. Tends to repeat similar mistakes
2. Average: Work is sometimes unsatisfactory due to untidiness
3. Good: Work is acceptable. Not many errors
4. Very Good: Reliable worker. Good quality of work. Checks work and observes.
5. Excellent: Work is of high quality. Errors are rare, if any. Little wasted effort.

Advantages:
• The method is easy to understand and is user friendly.
• Standardization of the comparison criteria’s
• Behaviours are quantified making appraisal system easier

Disadvantages:
• Judgemental error: Rating behaviours may or may not be accurate as the perception of behaviours might vary with
judges
• Difficulty in rating: Rating against labels like excellent and poor is difficult at times even tricky as the scale does
not exemplify the ideal behaviours required for a achieving a rating.
• Perception issues: Perception error like Halo effect, Recency effect, stereotyping etc. can cause incorrect rating.
• They are good at identifying the best and poorest of employees. However, it does not help while differentiating the
average employees.
• Not effective in understanding the strengths of employees. Different employees have different strong
characteristics and these might quantify to the same score.

Hence, this concludes the definition of Graphic Rating Scale along with its overview.

What Is Forced Ranking?

Forced ranking is a controversial workforce management tool that uses
intense yearly evaluations to identify a company's best and worst performing
employees, using person-to-person comparisons. In theory, each ranking will
improve the quality of the workforce. Managers rank workers into three
categories: The top 20 percent are the "A" players, the people who will lead the
future of the company. They're given raises, stock options, and training. The
middle 70 percent are the "B" players, steady-eddies who are given smaller raises
and encouraged to improve. The bottom 10 percent are the "C" players, who
contribute the least and may be meeting expectations but are simply "good" on a
team of "greats." They're given no raises or bonuses and are either offered
training, asked if they'd be happier elsewhere, or fired.

Advantages

By identifying their top employees, companies can jolt managers out of

complacency, combat artificially inflated performance ratings, and reduce
favoritism, nepotism, and promotions that may be based on factors other than
performance. Managers can identify top performers—the people they least want
to lose—and reward, keep, and train them to be future leaders of the business.
Forced ranking also provides a justifiable way to identify and lose workers who
may be holding the business back. About 40 percent of "C" players voluntarily
resign, which is often a happy outcome for managers, who can then hire better-
quality replacements.

Limitations

Companies can inevitably make mistakes using forced ranking, firing someone
who might go on to be a super star elsewhere or discouraging excellent
performers by ranking them as mediocre simply to fill a quota. Replacing lower-
rung employees each year can also be costly and can lower productivity in the
early months of adoption. New data, including a study by Drake University
professor Steve Scullen, shows that forced ranking loses its effectiveness after a
couple of years, since the average quality of workers increases and there are fewer
"C" players to identify.

Critics also claim the system creates a competitive environment that can result in
cutthroat, unethical behavior; limit risk-taking, creativity, and teamwork; and
discourage workers from asking for help or extra training out of fear that they'll
be identified as low performers. The strategy has also resulted in legal troubles
for such companies as Microsoft, Ford, Goodyear, 3M, and Capital One, which
have fought discrimination lawsuits filed by former employees who claimed
forced ranking was used to discriminate on the basis of race or age.