Abstract
Levinson (2003) examined the concept of Management by Objectives (MBO). He addressed the limitations of MBO as a process and suggested solutions for coping with the problems MBO programs present. He also outlined group goal setting and shared compensation on the relative success with which the group goals are achieved along with regular appraisals of the manager by subordinates.
This article seems to be about management by objectives, an approach to performance appraisal that's gone out of fashion for the most part. However, the intent of this article is to scrutinize the measurement systems we still use today. Levinson (2003) identified a constellation of problems that cripple performance appraisal systems: Unit managers are forced to commit to goals they don't believe are realistic. An obsession with objectivity and quantitative measures means that quality is neglected. Supervisors, who are profoundly uncomfortable rating people on their performance, make a hash of this critical task. Most important, in Levinson's view, the individual's needs and desires are absent from the performance measurement system; it's assumed that these are in perfect alignment with corporate goals and that, if they're not, the individual should move on. Levinson's suggestions for reform recall Frederick Herzberg's findings: People are most deeply motivated by work that stretches and excites them while also advancing organizational goals.
According to Levinson (2003), despite the fact that the concept of management by objectives (MBO) has become an integral part of the managerial process, the typical MBO effort intensifies distrust between a manager and subordinates. Coupled with performance appraisal, the intent is to approach a more rational management process ...