Do you think a rating that evaluates managers on personality factors such as aggressiveness, leadership, and attitude makes sense?

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.