Forced Ranking: Good, Bad, or Both?

Page 2 of 6 WHY FORCED RANKING IS OUTDATED   Oldsmobile launched the “this is not your father’s automobile” ad campaign to help revive their business and market to young and hip professionals.  Unfortunately, the campaign didn’t live up to the hype, and Todd is convinced that forced ranking will do just the same.  “It was a good system to use back in the ‘90’s, when there was a need to eliminate a massive number of employees.  Much like the Oldsmobile however, the times have changed.”  Todd continued by noting that forced ranking is the equivalent of grading students on a curve.  The only benefit of a curve is it makes up for the low performers, and teachers use this system when they haven’t done a good job in teaching the material.  Is this a subtle hint that forced ranking is implemented when a corporation has failed in the training process?  To make her argument more durable, Todd created a list of the top ten reasons why forced ranking is ineffective and outdated: NUMBER 10 – Forced ranking gives HR and Management a pass in the recruiting and hiring process: If poor performers can be easily weeded out, then the need to carefully select high performers during the hiring process does not play as big of a role as it should. NUMBER 9 – Forced ranking drives significant replacement costs: Some studies show replacement costs can be as high as 15 times the salary of the vacant job.  NUMBER 8 – A continual flow of new hires puts a drag on an organization’s performance:  New employees are constantly being trained, and managers continually use their time for training purposes. NUMBER 7 – People tend to seek out managers who write good appraisals. This does not mean that all of their direct reports are top performers. NUMBER 6 – Forced ranking is a lazy way to administer pay for performance programs: The percentage system creates a convenient way to dole out raises, and requires minimal effort to identify great or poor performers. NUMBER 5 – Forced ranking can create a culture of fear and mistrust: Most jobs are not conducive to objective measurements, making it too easy for measurement to be done poorly.  NUMBER 4 – There is no fair way to really compare people: Much of the work is performed within teams, making it difficult to isolate individual contributions.  NUMBER 3 – People reach peak performances at different times in their lives: Those who perform well under one set of conditions may not perform well under a new set of conditions. NUMBER 2 – Some companies justify the process because it worked well in lab simulations: In reality it is hard to control the manager’s influence on the goal-setting and assessment process.  NUMBER 1 – Forced ranking symbolizes a weak leadership team: The system reduces the need for managers to coach and motivate employees to higher levels of performance. << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > End >>