If you look carefully at the criteria above, you will see that they don't eliminate subjective judgements at all. This wouldn't be a major problem except that often we act as if the ratings ARE objective. We make pay and promotion decisions on information that is at best quite subjective. In terms of legal consequences, a poorly and badly designed set of criterion is probably not sufficient to protect an employer. But if we use the criterion above, we don't need rankings.
Ratings systems give people a false sense of security, protec tion and objectivity.
One function of performance appraisals is to help employees develop so they can contribute more effectively. The answer is No. It just says the manager is dissatisfied with something. In order to make it meaningful and promote growth, far more information must be added to the appraisal process. One argument offered by ratings proponents that the manager can use the rating scale as a springboard to discuss those details.