Rating

Page 2 of 3 The “middle” is a particularly challenging concept in most organizations. While the “middle” represents good performers who routinely meet their goals, many employees believe the organization is saying their performance is “just average” when their performance falls into the middle. Some are confronting their “middle” dilemma by improving training and communication on how the company values these solid performers. Most organizations said they do not employ a “forced ranking” process to slot a prescribed percentage of people into high, middle and low performing groupings. However, several companies said that even without a forced ranking practice, managers often have self-imposed restrictions on how many people receive the top rating. The performance management process is considered by many organizations as a fair way to reduce headcount because it enables them to eliminate the lowest performers. While some organizations said they used the process for that purpose during tough economic times or to stream line ranks after a long period of acquisitions, none of the survey participants said it’s a primary purpose of performance management today. In fact, many indicated the exact opposite.  In this study, organizations emphasized that the rating process has become important in the identification of their top performers. They recognize the increasing importance of retaining good talent, including visionary leaders, effective managers, top-producing sales people, brilliant engineers and scientists, customer-friendly call center staff and others filling important roles. The rating process helps them identify people they especially want to retain or put on a fast career track. One company said it eliminated the practice of forced ranking because it created a fear-based culture. When employees were afraid of falling into the bottom 20 percent, it sent a message that it was “every man for himself”. The company opted, instead, to focus significant effort on improving its recruiting and selection processes so that it’s not forced to periodically weed out low performers. That practice has, as a side benefit, reduced its costs for replacing talent. << Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>