Which performance appraisal method is most likely to be considered less effective?

The graphic rating scales method is often considered less effective due to its inherent limitations in providing comprehensive and qualitative feedback. This method typically relies on numerical ratings to evaluate employee performance across predetermined criteria, which tends to oversimplify complex behaviors and contributions. As a result, it may not capture the nuances of an employee's performance or provide insights into specific strengths and areas for improvement.

Moreover, graphic rating scales can lead to issues of subjectivity, where different raters may interpret the scale differently, resulting in inconsistencies and potential biases in evaluations. This lack of detailed feedback can hinder development opportunities and may not align with an organization's goals for performance improvement.

In contrast, other methods like Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) offer clear examples of performance behaviors tied to ratings, while Management by Objectives (MBO) focuses on specific, measurable goals that align individual and organizational objectives. Additionally, 360-degree feedback incorporates perspectives from various sources, providing a more rounded view of performance. These alternatives generally enable more constructive conversations about performance, making them more effective overall compared to graphic rating scales.