Forced Distribution Method: This method was evolved by Tiffen to eliminate the central tendency of rating most of the employees at a higher end of the scale. The method assumes that employees’ performance level confirms to a normal statistical distribution i.e., 10,20,40,20 and 10 per cent. This is useful for rating a large number of employees’ job performance and promo ability. It tends to eliminate or reduce bias. It is also highly simple to understand and easy to apply in appraising the performance of employees in organizations. It suffer from the drawback that improve similarly, no single grade would rise in a ratings. Forced-Choice Method: The forced-choice method is developed by J. P. Guilford. It contains a series of groups of statements,…show more content…
There are three steps involved in appraising employees using this method. First, a list of noteworthy (good or bad) on-the-job behaviour of specific incidents is prepared. Second, a group of experts then assigns weight age or score to these incidents, depending upon their degree of desirability to perform a job. Third, finally a check-list indicating incidents that describe workers as “good” or “bad” is constructed. Then, the check-list is given to the rater for evaluating the workers. The basic idea behind this rating is to apprise the workers who can perform their jobs effectively in critical situations. This is so because most people work alike in normal situation. The strength of critical incident method is that it focuses on behaviors and, thus, judge’s performance rather than personalities. Its drawbacks are to regularly write down the critical incidents which become time-consuming and burdensome for evaluators, i.e., managers. Generally, negative incidents are positive ones. It is rater’s inference that determines which incidents are critical to job performance. Hence, the method is subject to all the limitations relating to subjective
This month on Forbes.com there’s been a spirited dialogue around a controversial management technique – “stacking,” also known as "stacked rankings" and "forced rankings." All are names for performance evaluation systems in which organizations require set percentages of employees to be ranked in specific categories – for example, “top,” “good,” “fair,” “poor”… or "exceeds all expectations," "exceeds expectations," "meets expectations," "partly meets expectations," "fails to meet expectations," and so forth. Such systems are used by companies to identify, reward and weed out top and bottom performers.
An article in Vanity Fair by Kurt Eichenwald (“Microsoft’s Downfall: Inside The Executive E-mails and Cannibalistic Culture That Felled A Tech Giant") triggered recent discussion. Forbes subsequently featured posts including "The Terrible Management Technique That Cost Microsoft Its Creativity" by Frederick Allen, "The Management Approach Guaranteed To Wreck Your Best People" by Erika Andersen, and "The Case For Stack Ranking of Employees" by Robert Sher.
These articles - and the entire topic - clearly touched a chord in the business community. They generated on Forbes.com close to 400,000 readers and well over 300 reader comments. As a corporate manager who for several years managed employees in what we referred to as a "forced ranking" environment, I wanted to add my own personal experiences and observations to this active virtual conversation.
As is often the case for me when evaluating complex, emotional topics, I tend to land somewhere in the middle. As a manager with MassMutual Financial Group (a well respected Fortune 500 company), I did see some benefits to forced ranking, though in the end I felt these benefits were outweighed by the managerial problems it caused. That said, here are my two main conclusions:
The system did force managers to have hard conversations with employees that they might otherwise have avoided. There’s no question in my mind forced ranking does bring disciplined rigor to the management process. As any manager knows, it's often easier to avoid difficult, painful performance-related conversations than to confront them head on. Though some managers are outstanding in dealing with conflict, many (being after all only human) prefer to avoid or minimize it. Managing in a forced ranking system reminds me a bit of the famous old line from Joe Louis before his fight with Billy Conn, who boasted he'd rely on his speed in the ring. Responded Louis: “He can run, but he can’t hide.” In a forced ranking system, managers - and employees - have no place to hide. It literally forces performance issues to be addressed; for an organization that wants to tighten or formalize its management processes, I believe the system can have benefits.
From a hands-on management perspective, however, there were also clearly problems associated with it.
Put simply, it caused employee morale problems. While the system I managed in was intended to help promote closer linkage between job performance and bonus payouts – a worthy objective – it often felt like the cure was worse than the disease. As a manager, the discussions I had over many years about the fairness of bonus payouts were not nearly as problematic as those I routinely came to have over end-of-year rankings. The system I managed in had five rankings, and the largest number of employees were "forced" into the middle tier labelled "Meets Expectations." While objectively it may seem perfectly fine in a job to "meet expectations," the reality was (with two levels above this "grade") many employees felt like they were receiving a "C", not an "A" or "B." And good hard-working employees never like to feel like "C" students. Despite considerable management communication on the topic, many employees still felt like they were getting C's, and that bred discontent. (To some extent I believe this situation could have been mitigated by a four-grade system in which the majority of employees received what they perceived as "B's," not "C's." For example, with tongue a bit in cheek, the rankings in such a system could be: “You’re a star,” “Good job,” “Meets but rarely exceeds expectations” and “You’re out the door.”) An ancillary issue for me with forced rankings was that the system resulted in a heightened focus on individual performance and did little to promote team building - always valuable in a corporate environment.
Net-net, this is one manager's perspective. Was my experience that forced ranking was "ruinous," as appears to have been the case at Microsoft? No, not at all. But was the system an encumbrance that ultimately limited managers' flexibility and felt to me more of an obstacle than an aid in the managerial process? Yes, I’d say so.
So that was my personal sense of how forced ranking worked. My own small contribution to this management dialogue. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of others...