18
At the opposite end of the scale is an individual's ability to perform at the superior or exceptional
level. While the grade of "7" is the most agreeable to use, it is also the most easily abused. In
defining a grade of "7", or superior performance, the FTO must note that in most of the
definitions, the word "always" or "all" the time is used. The FTO must ask "has the Police
Officer performed this task flawlessly and with absolutely NO assistance during this rating
period?”
In most cases where the grade of "7" is misused, it is because the FTO confuses "superior
performance" with a "superior attitude." Keep in mind "Attitude toward Police Work" is a
separate category and can give credit to the Police Officer when it is deserved. It should be
noted that few officers are capable of "7" performance, but this should not be viewed as a
negative aspect of the program. Instead, the FTO should view the "7" as a goal for the Police
Officer to strive for and attempt to improve. A "7" should be given to the exceptional Police
Officer, for exceptional performance.
The FTO needs to understand the extreme of the rating scale and the minimal acceptable levels
that do not fall into any of the above three categories. As noted above, we utilized a scale of "1
to 7" instead of "1 to 5." The primary reason being that grades "2 and 3" and "5 and 6" give us
much more flexibility in defining "performance capabilities." Under a "1 to 5" scale, if a Police
Officer is not performing at the minimum acceptable level (a "3"), but the Police Officer's
performance is clearly not unacceptable (a "1"), then the only grade left is a "2". However, a
valid question for review is, "Is the Police Officer's performance capability closer to minimum or
unacceptable levels?” Under a "1 to 7" scale, a "3", while not meeting the minimum standards,
is very close or capable of, reaching them. At the same time, a "2", while not meeting
unacceptable standards, is very close or capable of, reaching them. At the same time, a "2",
while not meeting unacceptable standards, is very close to becoming so if this level of
performance continues. At the opposite end of the scale, it should be clear how to apply the
grade of "5 and 6." In applying a grade of "5", the FTO indicates that while the Police Officer's
current performance capabilities are above minimum standards, the Police Officer is closer to
minimum standards than superior standards. Obviously a grade of "6" indicates that the Police
Officer is closer to superior than minimum standards.
In scale value application, the first principle that must be accepted by all is that each of us has
different perceptions on nearly everything in the life experience. While a standardization of
ratings is an acute necessity, an attempt to standardize perceptions is doomed to failure at the
start. For example, FTO "A", based on prior negative experience of his own, sees a Police
Officer's exposure of his weapon to a suspect as worth a "1" rating (Officer Safety) while FTO
"B" may see the same behavior as worth a "3". Should the Police Officer or we really be
concerned? Our answer is "No!” as long as both officers see the performance as "Unacceptable"
under the guideline quoted.
A lack of standardization ensues when one FTO sees the performance of an Unacceptable (Scale
values 1, 2, or 3) and the other sees the same behavior as "Acceptable," (scale values 4, 5, 6, or
7). In summary then, we have no difficulty accepting differences in officers' perceptions unless
these perceptional differences vary between Unacceptable and Acceptable ratings for the same
behavior.