B.R Investments is a reputed finance company having 15 branches in different part of the country. In the home office there are more than 200 employees. This company has a performance rating under which the employees are rated at six months intervals by a committee of two executives. Graphic scales have been used as means of appraisal. The qualities considered are responsibility, initiative, and interest in work, leadership potential, co-operative attitude and community activity. After the performance is evaluated, the ratings are discussed with the concerned employees by their immediate boss who counsels them. The ratings aroused to influence promotions and salary adjustments the employees and also as a criterion for assigning further rating for them.
Recently three employees of the company called on the company’s president to express their dissatisfaction with the ratings they had received. Their scores and composite ratings had been discussed with them. Because their ratings were comparatively low, they had been denied annual increments in salary. Approximately, two thirds of all the employees received such increments. The aggrieved employees argued that their ratings did not accurately represent their qualifications or performance. They insisted that “community activity” was not actually a part of their job and that what they do off the job is none of the company’s business. They expressed their opinion that employees should organize union and insist that salary increase be automatic.
The threat of a union caused concern to the officers of the company. This particular experience convinced the top officers that ratings may represent a serious hazard to satisfactory relationship with employees. Even the chief executive finds that performance appraisal is a dangerous source of friction and its hazards outweigh its values; so it should be discontinued altogether.