Behavioral Event Interview (BEI) dikenal sebagai teknik Interview yang terstruktur, terarah dan terpola

berbasis behavior. Behavioral Event Interview (BEI) adalah struktur pertanyaan yang digunakan untuk
mengumpulkan berbagai informasi tentang masa lalu. Karena perilaku masa lalu adalah sebagai
predictor perilaku yang akan dia kerjakan. Pada setiap pertanyaan tersebut akan membantu
pewawancara untuk mengungkap kemampuan yang dimiliki interviewee.

Dalam behavioral event interview (BEI) pewawancara akan menanyakan pertanyaan-pertanyaan tentang
masa lalu. Teknik dalam menanyakan pertanyaan-pertanyaan itu biasanya menggunakan teknik STAR.

Behavioral Event Interview merupakan teknik wawancara berdasarkan kompetensi yang sangat khas dan
secara khusus sirancang untuk mengungkapkan kompetensi sebagai mana definisi dan konsep yang
mereka susun.

Pada level implementasi, pewawancara yang menggunakan BEI berusaha sedalam mungkin menggali
sedalam mungkin berbagai aspek psikologis dibalik tindakan-tindakan interviewee yang dilakukan pada
kejadian-kejadian kritis yang secara aktual pernah dialami dalam lingkup pekerjaannya. Tidak hanya
tindakan dan hasilnya yang dipertanyakan, namun juga pikiran dan perasaan orang yang bersangkutan
sebelum, sewaktu dan sesudah bertindak. Dengan mempertanyakan secara mendalam dan mendetail
pikiran dan perasaannya, diharapkan interviewee akan dapat ditemukan bukti-bukti dinamika psikologis
yang mengindikasikan kekuatan intensi, self-concept, traits, sikap dan terutama motivasi. (Prihadi, 2004
: 99-100)
The absolute performance proponents would state that the goal setting exercise sets the expectation.
So when it comes to measuring if you have performed better than the goals (how many ever in the
team), everyone then deserves to be ranked an out performer. If you have missed the goals by a pre-set
margin, only then you are an underperformer. Well all through our school days it was clear what would
give a distinction or what would cause me to fail the exams isn’t it. This would be reinforced by the fact
that in a team model – the team is not in a race amongst themselves, so everyone will be willing to help
thy buddy to succeed as well, thus reinforcing the team first principle. If someone still underperforms,
then it’s appropriate to let go. After all everyone feels happy when everyone around them is happily
rated. So this model sounds good too to promote team performance, is it or is it not?

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

The Strong Points

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.

The Weak Spots

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.

Idiosyncratic adalah suatu karakter dari seorang pengambilan keputusan. Disini Idiosyncratic bertujuan
untuk individu yang memiliki peran yang cukup signifikan sebagai salah satu bagian dari pembuat
keputusan untuk mempengaruhi hasil