„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

performance for you in your job would be an average of sixty units an hour. You have
been averaging forty units over the last month. On this basis I would judge your
performance as ineffective.” If, on the other hand, the supervisor says, “Your
performance has averaged forty units per hour; that is ineffective,” the result may be an
argument about whether forty units is really good or bad. We should remember that
bettors place their bets before a wheel is spun or a race is run. “Good” must be defined
prior to behavior if it is to have meaning.
The use of an a priori goal differs from the use of a generally accepted standard, in
that the recipient agrees on the definition of “effective” or “good” performance before
the activity takes place. Thus, it escapes the arbitrariness of an externally imposed
standard.
Comparison with Desired Behavior
This approach emphasizes the recipient’s actions that have been shown to lead to
preferred outcomes. For example, a supervisor may say, “When an employee arrives at
work at the 9:00 starting time, presses the activating buttons on the machine for an
average of forty minutes an hour, follows the prescribed work cycle, and takes no more
than twenty minutes a day for relief breaks, he or she will average sixty units an hour.
You have been late most days and have taken one hour for breaks, so your output has
averaged forty units. That is not good behavior.”
Such comparisons between planned and actual behavior as an assessment of
outcomes are a form of criterion referencing known as “content-referenced appraisal.” It
differs from the appraisal based on a universal standard or an a priori goal because of its
emphasis on the process that leads to desired outcomes. When a known procedure is
shown to lead to a desired goal, controlling the performance of the procedure ensures the
attainment of the goal. Thus, a judgment that the behavior is not being executed
automatically suggests that outcomes will not be or have not been met.
Content-referenced appraisal depends on a proven connection between behavior
and outcomes and on the recipient’s acceptance of that connection. Its chief limitation is
the lack of consideration of other alternatives. Judgments about failure to follow desired
behaviors may be resisted or resented by recipients who have demonstrated alternate
behaviors that achieve the same goal. For this reason, content-referenced appraisal
should probably be limited to situations in which there is only one process to a goal or
one clearly superior alternative.
Comparison with Past Performance
A supervisor using this approach might say, “Your performance in the job averaged
sixty units a day over the past six months. This month you averaged forty units a day.
Your production this month has not been effective.” In this case the past performance
provides the standard, and deviation from that standard is used as the measure of
performance.
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer ❚❘ 193