While it is true superior performance must be recognized, it cannot be denied that such rating cannot come about without taking into consideration other employees’ performance, comparison being a basis for or a method of performance appraisal. Thus, when one or more employees are given a rating of outstanding, surely, others are rated below that rating. The implication can be that other employees are inferior or low performers, and that can be shattering to their ego. Worse, if the employees don’t agree with the rating, and such disagreement isn’t settled, they might feel resentful, and animosities and intrigue among employees might ensue.
As a consequence, they might not be motivated to work resulting in the deterioration of their work performance thereby defeating the very purpose for which performance appraisal is being done.
There is also a tendency for performance evaluation to be used (or be misused, for that matter) as an instrument for personal vengeance by those in power and authority, especially so that one Poor rating or two successive Unsatisfactory ratings for an employee can be a ground for separation from the service.
During the time of the now defunct United States Facility in Subic Bay, performance evaluation was associated with grand incentives—not only certificates of recognition or plaques of appreciation and the accompanying cash awards but even the chance to work and live in the “land overflowing with milk and honey”. Employees who rendered service with the U.S. Government (outside of the U.S.) for 15 or more years were given the privilege to apply for special immigrant in the United States. But the Special Immigrant Program is not merely a reward for length of service. Employees should be able to present a number of certificates of awards to the U.S. Embassy as proof of their outstanding performance. This privilege can easily be lost as a result of actions of vindictive supervisors who unjustly rate their subordinates due to ill feelings they harbor against them.
There might also be instances when the rater does not know the mechanics of making an evaluation and the rating he gives may not reflect the actual performance of the employees, thus, resulting in erroneous and unjust appraisal.
Performance evaluation should be accurate and credible if it is to serve its intended purpose.
Since the rater plays a major role in performance appraisal and is the key personnel influencing its outcome, accuracy and credibility of the report depend much on him. It is, therefore, imperative that placement and selection of personnel be based on the merit and fitness system of the Civil Service Commission to ensure public organizations of personnel highly capable of carrying out organizational functions and program activities geared towards attaining organizational goals and objectives.