There are no doubt some occasions in which employees will believe it is fair for a supervisor to hold a particular co-worker to a lower performance standard-for instance, a colleague whose entire family was just killed in a car crash, or who lost a finger, or who has a learning disability, or who is brand new to the job. However, appraisal systems that permit evaluators to establish a separate baseline for each person being evaluated can invite perceptions of subjectivity and bias among those being evaluated. They certainly invite ferocious politicking and the possibility of corruption. Besides worrying about perceived (and actual) justice in comparative evaluation schemes, you have to worry about the impact that such schemes can have on the behavior of those being evaluated. It can happen that some likely behavioral reactions:
1 - Politicking and possible attempts at corruption may occur at the time the criteria for evaluation are established or handicaps are employed. We know of no fool-proof response to this problem, but for several reasons it often helps to have criteria set and handicaps determined by a committee of supervisors: a) it is usually harder to corrupt or influence a committee than an individual; b) individual supervisors are less likely to be capricious or biased when they have to defend their actions in a group; and c) committees can stiffen the backbone of individual supervisors, by giving them a "cover" or excuse for decisions that are made. leia todo o artigo
