What I propose, as checks and balences, is that the employees also evaluate and rank each other and themselves. If their ranking and management's ranking/evaluation is the same, then everyone is in sync. If not, then management needs to understand what the real status is.
Employees should be asked to evaluate their fellow employees about these types of characteristics:
Evaluating employees can be a daunting task especially if the manager is expected to "rank" their employees. This "ranking" affects the employees' career growth, promotions, assignments, and awards. What the manager sees and is aware of may differ from what the other members of the department perceives. It is a known fact that employees will behave one way among themselves and another when management is present. I believe that it is best if the management's view and the employee's views are the same. If there are major differences then morale in the department can be adversely affected with a resultant drop in productivity and co-operation within the department. This can result in a low ranking of the manager in a company wide opinion survey.
As everyone should know, people are different with different habits, personality traites, quirks, etc. This can cause some managers to view some employees in a non-positive way. For example, one employee that I knew, Keith, had a quirk that was affecting his career after a transfer to a another department. His quirk was that he would only work 8 hours a day so his new management thought that he did not have the dedication that they wanted by working 10 or more hours a day.
Well, I knew that Keith had this quirk but also knew that he could do the work of three people during the 8 hours. This included everything from attending meetings, writing reports and documentation, detailed design, and writing and testing code. Keith also did not make mistakes and always fully completed assignments on time or ahead of schedule. As Keith's team leader, I learned this when management gave me an assignment to get Keith to work more hours. First I managed to convince Keith to stay at work an extra hour. He spent this time by proping his feet on his desk and reading the New York Times and then leaving when the hour was up. Since this was not quite what was meant by working later, I decided to give Keith more productive work to do. I did this for a couple of weeks and Keith handled all of these new assignments and still left after 8 hours. When Keith said that he did not have time to handle another assignment I sat back and reviewed what he had been doing. Rather than continue to blindly give Keith more and more assignments, and eventually breaking him, I realized that he was doing an amazing amount of work during the day; i.e., about three times as much as anyone else. As far as I was concerned, Keith's quirk was acceptable and and he also had a lot of potential.
After passing this on to his new management, I guess that they loaded him down and were pleased with the results because I saw that Keith was being promoted and was moving up thru the ranks quickly.
The whole point of the above experience is that managers and employees have different views of each other and all have their unique quirks. To have management evaluate employees without some sort of checks and balences is inviting all sort of mis-interpretations.