PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Forced ranking under the microscope
It is not surprising that performance management systems using forced ranking evoke such strong opinions. For its advocates, the process creates and sustains a high-performance culture that eliminates weak performers and rewards and retains high-flyers. But to its critics, rather than acting as an incentive to higher levels of achievement, forced ranking is more likely to be detrimental to morale, undermine teamwork and co-operation and invite litigation. Lisa Sprenkle, writing for the online HR magazine Workforce.com, looks at all the pros and cons.
For Sprenkle, who is a manager in Andersen's human capital practice in the US, this controversial way of managing performance "typically either aligns people in preset 'buckets' (such as top 20%, the middle 70% and the low-performing 10% — the system used at GE) or ranks them by performance from best to worst."
Where is it most appropriate?
But is forced ranking right for your business? Sprenkle is clear that the process is not appropriate for all organisations. She concludes: "Each organisation, through careful analysis, will have to decide if this approach would be beneficial or detrimental for the company. The first two considerations should be: What are your performance management objectives? What does your culture value?"
Want to know more?
Title: "Forced ranking: a good thing for business?", by Lisa D Sprenkle, Workforce.com.
Availability: Workforce magazine is published monthly by ACC Communications Inc, 245 Fischer Avenue B-2, Costa Mesa, California CA 92626, USA. For subscription services, tel: 001 303 604 1464 (USA 800 444 6485). Or email the online editor Todd Raphael for more information . . . raphaelt@workforce.com.
Take a look at the article online - see what you think . . .
http://email.workforce.com/cgi-bin2/flo?y=eFca0DiZN20CKs0BEOB0AL