7 Inadequacies of Appraisal Systems
According to Harry Levinson, the inadequacies are:
1. No matter how well defined the dimensions for appraising performance on quantitative goals are, judgments on performance are usually subjective and impressionistic.
2. Because appraisal provides inadequate information about the subtleties of performance, managers using them to compare employees for the purpose of determining salary increases often make arbitrary judgments.
3. Rating by different managers and especially those in different units are usually incomparable. What is excellent work in one unit may be unacceptable in another in the same company,
4. When salary increases are allocated on the basis of a curve of normal distribution which is in turn based on rating of results rather than on behaviour, competent employees may not only be denied increases, but may also become demotivated.
5. Trying to base promotion and layoff decisions on appraisal data leaves the decisions open to acrimonious debate. When employees who have been retired early have complained to federal authorities of age discrimination, defendant companies have discovered that there were inadequate data to support the layoff decisions.
6. Although managers are urged to give feedback freely and often, there are no built- in mechanisms for ensuring that they do so. Delay in feedback creates both frustration, when good performance in not quickly recognized, and anger, when judgment is rendered for inadequacies long past.
7. There are few effective established mechanisms to cope with either the sense of inadequacy managers have about appraising subordinates or the paralysis and procrastination that result from guilt about playing God.