Like all rating systems, it has strengths and limitations. I think that one of its most evident strengths would be that personality type and temperament has to be included in evaluating managers. Workplace bullying and intimidation of subordinates and co workers is a significant issue. When we are looking at factors like aggressiveness, there is an immediate tendency to see this trait in combination with power as perhaps helping to create a work atmosphere of intimidation and bullying. Legislation has passed in certain states with others to follow to outlaw such behavior. If evaluations can reveal potential bullying behaviors, then I think that it needs to be investigated. Even apart from this, there is an interpersonal skill that is needed in any workplace. Personality factors is a part of this. I certainly don't think that this should be the only evaluation tool because interpersonal intelligence is not the only intelligence required in any workplace. Yet, I think that it should be a part of a comprehensive metric that evaluates the overall effectiveness of all managers and people in the positions of power in as many different realms as possible.
The quality of leadership is always desirable in managers. Therefore it is definitely meaningful to evaluate all kinds of managers in all kind of situations on leadership. Only caution to be used is that there is no clear cut way to assess the leadership quality. As a matter of fact of fact there are different possible leadership styles. In a particular set up, one leadership style may be more appropriate than others. Therefore it is important to select appropriate criteria and method for assessing leadership performance of managers.
Aggressiveness is not necessarily a desirable quality in all managers. Like leadership the aggressiveness can take different forms and some of these forms may be undesirable in managers. Thus It would be better to assess manages on qualities like initiative, drive, and persistence, which come quite close to what may be considered a desirable forms of aggressiveness.
The term attitude is too general. It is not possible to evaluate managers for just attitudes. What is possible is to identify specific attitudes desirable in managers in specific organization and position, and evaluate them against these. However, attitudes are important because they impact other qualities like leadership, initiative, and empathy that directly shape performance of managers. Therefore, evaluation against attitude is required only when some important type of attitude is not covered by other traits. For example an organization engaged in environmental protection may consider it important to assess attitude of its managers and other employees towards importance of environment.