In general, as the name implies, a rating scale is normative in nature, that is to say it requires the rater to determine how good someone is in the performance of certain functions. Thus, in responding to a statement such as “This person conveys her ideas in an enthusiastic and persuasive manner,” one must make a judgment regarding the effectiveness of the employee’s performance. Obviously, there is an assumption embedded in this statement that being “enthusiastic and persuasive” is better than not being enthusiastic or not being persuasive. An indifferent employee or ineffective communicator is inherently not a good thing. Thus, a low score on this item would be indicative of a deficit, while a high score would be indicative of a strength or competency.
While most rating scales are normative, they can be descriptive if, for instance, an employee’s style or manner of operating is being assessed. There is no good or bad in a descriptive rating scale, rather a pattern of behavior is being described, or several different patterns are being described. The rater is to indicate the extent to which each of these patterns is characteristic of the employee being assessed.
Thus, a descriptive statement might read: “This employee tends to react to opposition by being highly enthusiastic about her ideas and by insisting that others hear her out.” A second descriptive statement might read: “This employee tends to react to opposition by rethinking her own position and seeking out compromise in order to accommodate everyone’s need.” The rater is asked to rate the extent to which each of these statements is “characteristic” of the employee. Neither of these statements is inherently a “better” way of addressing opposition to one’s ideas; rather, each statement briefly describes a particular style or pattern of behavior.
An appreciative approach to performance appraisal is more compatible with descriptive rating scales than with normative scales. While a normative scale can help one identify strengths and competencies, a descriptive scale will often yield deeper understanding of the employee’s behavior and motives. This understanding can, in turn, lead to more thoughtful and insightful planning regarding the employee’s ongoing development (function two), as well as facilitating team building (function four). Knowing something about an employee’s specific style or pattern of behavior can also facilitate the identification of future staffing needs (function five) and the reformulation and clarification of roles (function eleven) in the organization.
