员工会感到压力，因为他们在寻找消极的方面，而且员工会把整个绩效考核视为一种具有挑战性的元素。此外，由于流程对个人的考虑超过了对组织的考虑，因此会出现这样的情况:将给予性能单元更多的关注，而不是性能聚合(Hollenbeck et al .， 1997, Guest, 1997)。传统的过程也被用于评分和绩效量表的使用，这些量表更侧重于刚性变量(Latham, 1981)。影响变量的因素很多，而这些变量在组织中没有被考虑。例如，在个人自我评价的评分中，向参与员工提供李克特量表问卷。然而，这些问题都是封闭式的，可能不会鼓励员工分享他们所代表的信息之外的其他信息。这在员工中引起了不满，他们想要一种允许他们分享信息的文化。工作场所有更多的协作文化，员工也期望在他们的绩效管理中有某种协作文化。目前，企业利用比较的方法来研究绩效曲线，以便为员工提供建议。然而，与大多数传统的绩效管理系统一样，这被视为负面批评。
最后，同大多数传统的考绩管理一样，作为制度一部分进行的考绩通常是用来协商薪金等级。绩效考核与薪酬等级的密切联系也侵蚀了绩效管理的意义。从讨论现有组织如何在绩效管理上下文中与员工产生问题开始，有必要将组织的战略方向调整为创建一个绩效管理系统。正如在问题讨论中所提出的那样，管理系统被认为更加注重正在为其进行考绩的个人。组织有必要将绩效评估理解为整个组织战略计划的一部分。这应该是一项实际的评价，并应符合本组织的目标。因此，根据这一最佳实践，例如，绩效评估可以用于设计高性能团队和跨职能团队的人才识别。每个被评估的成员都必须达到一些特定的目标，此外还将评估他们是否发挥了自己的优势(Gomez-Mejia, et al, 2004;层,2014)。因此，在这种背景下，绩效评估的作用应该是这样的，它可以创建高绩效的团队，拥有最优秀的员工，还可以利用员工的优势，根据组织目标进行分类。
The employee is stressed and because of the search for the negative aspects and the employee is seen to consider the entire performance exercise as a form of challenging element. Also since the process considers the individual more than it should do the organization, situations are raised where the performance units would be given more focus rather than performance aggregation (Hollenbeck et al, 1997, Guest, 1997).The traditional process was also used in way where ratings and performance scales were made use of that were more focused on rigid variables (Latham, 1981). There are many influencing factors on variables and these variables are not considered in the organization. For instance, in the rating of individual self-assessment, a Likert scale questionnaire is presented to the participant employee. These questions however are closed ended and might not encourage employees to share information in addition to what they are allowed to represent. This has created discontent among employees and they want a culture where they are allowed to share information. The workplace has more of a collaborative culture and the employees expect something of a collaborative culture in their performance management too. At present the organizations makes use of a comparative approach where they look at performance curves in order to advise the employee. However, as with most traditional performance management system this is seen as negative criticism.
Finally, as with most traditional performance management the performance appraisal that is carried out as part of the system is usually used to negotiate for paygrades. The close association of performance appraisals and paygrades also corrodes the meaning of performance management. From the discussion on how the existing organization has had issues with employees in the context of performance management, it is necessary to align the organization strategic direction into creating a performance management system. As was presented in the issues discussion, MSS was seen to focus more on the individual for whom the performance appraisal is being done. It is necessary for the organization to understand performance appraisal as being a part of the entire organization’s strategic plan. It should be a practical appraisal and should be aligned with the organization’s objectives. So according to this best practice for instance, performance appraisals could hence be used to design high performance teams and cross functional teams identified by talents. Every member who is being appraised will have to meet some specific goals and in addition would also be assessed as to if they have played to their strengths (Gomez-Mejia, et al, 2004; Storey, 2014). So in this context, the role of the performance appraisal should be such that it can create high performing teams with the top performers, and also make use of employees categorized by their strengths according to the organization objectives being targeted.