Comparative and Forcing Methods

Forced choice of descriptive phrases

The forced-choice method consists of evaluating behavior using blocks of alternative statements that describe individual performance types.

The evaluator is obliged to choose one or two statements that best explain the evaluated worker's performance.

Generally, the blocks are composed of two statements of positive and two of negative meaning; the supervisor must select the one that applies most and the one that applies least to the observed behavior. Another variant uses blocks of four exclusively positive statements.

These phrases are selected using statistical procedures that test their discriminatory ability based on applicability indices.

By eliminating the evaluator's subjective control over the final score, the "halo effect" or the tendency to generalize the subordinate's assessment across all factors evaluated is neutralized.

Pairwise comparison and ranking

The peer comparison method evaluates performance by comparing workers two by two within the same group or department.

In this process, the evaluator scores the one he or she considers the better performer in relation to performance in a final results column.

This system is purely comparative and makes it possible to establish a clear hierarchy of who are the best, average and worst in a specific context.

Its main disadvantage is that, being a complex and time-consuming administrative process if the group is large, it does not provide the evaluator with a deep overall notion of the outcome beyond the relative position of the worker vis-à-vis his or her peers.

Even so, it is useful for personnel decisions such as promotions or layoffs when resources or vacancies are limited, since it forces technical differentiation among staff members based on measurable and objective productivity criteria.

Summary

The forced-choice method evaluates behavior using