„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

BASES FOR DESCRIPTIVE JUDGMENTS
Comparison with Other Measured Performances
When, for example, a supervisor tells an employee, “You are doing the same kind of
work as employees A, B, and C, but last month they each averaged sixty units per hour
and you averaged forty units per hour,” a comparison with other measured performances
is being made. “On this basis I judge your work to be the least effective in the group.”
In this situation the supervisor has communicated the basis for the judgment, the
comparative measurement and relative position among the four workers, and his or her
judgment. The response evoked is likely to be better than if the supervisor merely said,
“You are not doing a good job.”
A judgment based on a comparison with all other comparable members is an
example of what is known as “norm-referenced appraisal” in the testing sense
(American Psychological Association, 1974, p. 19), in which, for example, the position
of each person’s score is determined, compared with a mean, and expressed as a
standard score. The major criticism of norm-referenced appraisal is that relative position
depends on the performance of parties with whom the individual is compared. When
used for purposes of judgment, the recipient might well say, “But my work is more like
that of employees D, E, and F than employees A, B, and C.” This difficulty may be
allayed if agreement about the proper comparison parties and about the unit of
measurement to be used is obtained prior to the actual measurement and evaluation of
performance.
Comparison with an Accepted Standard
A comparison based on this approach involves the use of a generally accepted definition
of performance, over which the recipient has no control. For example, a supervisor may
say, “We all know that the standard output for a person doing your job is sixty units per
hour. You averaged forty units during the last month. On this basis I judge your work
last month to be ineffective.” Again, the basis for measurement, the result, and the
judgment have been communicated.
This method is one form of “criterion-referenced appraisal.” A cutoff score on
admission tests used by a university is a similar example. The chief difficulty with
criterion-referenced appraisal is the arbitrariness of the criterion level. This problem
may be reduced by identifying valid evidence of the value of the standard. Such an
approach is not likely to be welcome when the person making the judgment relies solely
on his or her status or experience (for example, “Speaking as a psychologist . . .” or “In
my experience . . .”).
Comparison with an A Priori Goal
The use of a standard to which the recipient has agreed prior to actual performance is
essential with this method, which is another form of criterion-referenced appraisal. For
example, a supervisor may say, “We both agreed last month that an acceptable level of
192 ❘❚
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer