s. Raters are dealing with a blunt tool, and subordinates are likely to be vague about what qualities they are being rated on. In the hands of most practitioners, it is a crude device, and since raters are painfully aware of this, they are reluctant to use it in a manner that woFor many years, managers have been evaluated against standards of personal traits and work characteristics. Typical trait-rating evaluation systems may list ten to fifteen personal characteristics, such as ability to get along with people, leadership, analytical competence, judgment and initiative.

The list may also include such work- related characteristics as job knowledge, ability to carry through on assignments, production or cost results, or success in seeing that plans and instructions are carried out. However, until recent years, personal traits have far outweighed work-related characteristics. On the basis of these standards, the rater appraises subordinates, rating them from unacceptable to outstanding.

One practical problem of the trait approach to appraisal is that, because trait evaluation cannot be objective, serious managers do not wish to utilize their obviously subjective judgment on a matter as important as performance. And employees who receive less than the top rating almost invariably feel that they have been dealt with unfairly.

Trait criteria are at best nebulous. Raters are dealing with a blunt tool, and subordinates are likely to be vague about what qualities they are being rated on. In the hands of most practitioners, it is a crude device, and since raters are painfully aware of this, they are reluctant to use it in a manner that wou

gment and initiative.

The list may also include such work- related characteristics as job knowledge, ability to carry through on assignments, production or cost results, or success in seeing that plans and instructions are carried out. However, until recent years, personal traits have far outweighed work-related characteristics. On the basis of these standards, the rater appraises subordinates, rating them from unacceptable to outstanding.

One practical problem of the trait approach to appraisal is that, because trait evaluation cannot be objective, serious managers do not wish to utilize their obviously subjective judgment on a matter as important as performance. And employees who receive less than the top rating almost invariably feel that they have been dealt with unfairly.

Trait criteria are at best nebulous. Raters are dealing with a blunt tool, and subordinates are likely to be vague about what qualities they are being rated on. In the hands of most practitioners, it is a crude device, and since raters are painfully aware of this, they are reluctant to use it in a manner that wo

traits have far outweighed work-related characteristics. On the basis of these standards, the rater appraises subordinates, rating them from unacceptable to outstanding.

One practical problem of the trait approach to appraisal is that, because trait evaluation cannot be objective, serious managers do not wish to utilize their obviously subjective judgment on a matter as important as performance. And employees who receive less than the top rating almost invariably feel that they have been dealt with unfairly.

Trait criteria are at best nebulous. Raters are dealing with a blunt tool, and subordinates are likely to be vague about what qualities they are being rated on. In the hands of most practitioners, it is a crude device, and since raters are painfully aware of this, they are reluctant to use it in a manner that wo

ective, serious managers do not wish to utilize their obviously subjective judgment on a matter as important as performance. And employees who receive less than the top rating almost invariably feel that they have been dealt with unfairly.

Trait criteria are at best nebulous. Raters are dealing with a blunt tool, and subordinates are likely to be vague about what qualities they are being rated on. In the hands of most practitioners, it is a crude device, and since raters are painfully aware of this, they are reluctant to use it in a manner that wo

s. Raters are dealing with a blunt tool, and subordinates are likely to be vague about what qualities they are being rated on. In the hands of most practitioners, it is a crude device, and since raters are painfully aware of this, they are reluctant to use it in a manner that would damage the careers of their subordinates. One of the principal purposes of appraisal is to provide a basis upon which to discuss performance and to plan for improvement. But trait evaluations provide few tangible things to discuss, little on which participants can agree as fact, and therefore little mutual understanding of what is required to obtain improvement.

As the deficiencies of trait rating have come to be recognized, a number of changes and additions have been introduced. Some are aimed at making the traits more comprehensible to raters. Often, too, trait and work-quality forms are supplemented by open-ended evaluations in which, without specific guidance, appraisers are asked to supply whatever evidence on performance they feel is pertinent.