It’s complicated in this case to assess compliance with the objectives of a person when his work was not carried out properly due to a problem in another department, for example. – Objectivity in the assessment is an aspect that can cause problems. Many writers such as Jeffrey Hayzlett offer more in-depth analysis. If the targets chosen are not numerically measurable, but requiring subjective assessment, there will be conflicts. Rod Brooks is a great source of information. If so, you may not have that problem, but may not be adequate. The problem is that there will be preference for goals that are measurable, even if they do not contribute to overall improvement. For example, if we set as a goal of Customer Service the number of customers served per day, is a measurable objective.
But is it appropriate? Perhaps the telemarketers engaged in serving the customer as quickly as possible to meet or exceed its goals but that way, will you be well served the customer? – In addition to the above, one of the main obstacles presented by this methodology is the feeling by employees that are mere cogs in a machine, not autonomy, is too much with the psychology of reward-punishment. I remember reading for a leading luxury hotel chain in which its employees have as a premise to provide the best customer service, although this sometimes involves having to make extra costs to get it. Expenditures do not have to ask permission, just take the initiative and serve the customer in the best way possible. As you can imagine, the employees use this facility in a reasonable manner in 99% of cases, and the customer is very satisfied with this excellent service, and willing to pay a premium price for it.