AbstractSome organizations, such as General Electric, currently use or have used forced distribution performance evaluation systems in order to rate employees' performance. This paper addresses the advantages and disadvantages as well as the legal implications of using such a system. It also discusses how an organization might assess whether a forced distribution system would be a good choice and key considerations when implementing such a system. The main concern is whether the organizational culture is compatible with a forced distribution system. When a company implements such a system, some important issues to consider include providing adequate training and ongoing support to managers who will be carrying out the system and also conducting adverse impact analyses to reduce legal risk. Show Type Research ArticleCopyright Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2010 ReferencesAbelson, R (2001) Companies turn to grades and employees go to court, The New York Times, 03 19, 150(51697).Google Scholar Bates, S (2003) Forced rankling, HR Magazine, 06: 63–68.Google Scholar Boyle, M (2001) Performance reviews: Perilous curves ahead, Fortune, 05 28: 187–188.Google Scholar Briarty, MA (1988) Performance appraisal: Some unintended consequences, Public Personnel Management, 17: 421–434.Google Scholar Dowling, P, Welch, D and Schuler, R (1999) International dimensions of human resources. Cincinnati OH: South Western College Publishing.Google Scholar Easterby-Smith, M, Malina, D and Yuan, L (1995) How culture-sensitive is HRM? A comparative analysis of practice in Chinese and UK companies, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(1): 31–59.Google Scholar Gary, L (2001) The controversial practice of forced ranking, Harvard Management Update, 06 10: 3–4.Google Scholar Guralnik, O, Rozmarin, E and So, A (2004) Forced distribution: Is it right for you?, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3): 339–345.Google Scholar Guralnik, O and Wardi, LA (2003) Forced distribution: A controversy, Society for Human Resource Management White Paper, 08.Google Scholar Hempel, PS (2001) Differences between Chinese and Western managerial views or performance, Personnel Review, 30(2): 203–226.Google Scholar Hofstede, G (1980) Culture's consequences: international differences in work related values. Beverly Hills CA:Sage.Google Scholar Huo, YP and von Glinow, MA (1995) On transplant ing human resource practices to China: a culture-driven approach', International Journal of Manpower, 16(9): 3–15.Google Scholar Kinsman, M (2002) Being good but irritating doesn't work, The San Diego Union-Tribune, 01 22: C1.Google Scholar Krames, JA (2002) The Jack Welch lexicon of leadership, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar Macdougall, N (1991) The story behind salary increases, CMA – the Management Accounting Magazine, 65: 34.Google Scholar Maley, J and Kramar, R (2007) International performance appraisal: policies, practices and processes in Australian subsidiaries of healthcare MNCs, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 15(2): 21–40.Google Scholar Meisler, A (2003) Dead man's curve, Workforce Management, 06.Google Scholar Milliman, J, Nason, S, Zhu, C and De Cieri, H (2002) An exploratory assessment of the purpose of performance appraisals in North & Central America and the Pacific Rim. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 40(1): 87–107.Google Scholar Osborne, T and McCann, LA (2004) Forced ranking and age-related employment discrimination, Human Rights, 31: 6–9.Google Scholar
Schleicher, DJ, Bull, RA and Green, SG (2008) Rater reactions to forced distribution rating systems, Journal of Management, vol. 0: pp. 0149206307312514v1.Google Scholar Schrage, M (2000) How the bell curve cheats you, Fortune, 141: 296.Google Scholar Scullen, SE, Bergey, PK and Aiman-Smith, L (2005) Forced distribution rating systems and the improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation, Personnel Psychology, 58: 1–32Google Scholar Truby, M (2001) Age-bias claims jolt Ford culture change, The Detroit News, 04 29.Google Scholar Vance, A and Davidhizar, R (1998) Motivating the minimal performer, Hospital Topics, 76(4): 8–12.Google Scholar What is the advantages of forced distribution method?Additional advantage of this method is it's relatively quick and easy model for understanding and implementing. It is also very for HR to target development programs to appropriate talents, as all employees are divided into groups.
What is a potential disadvantage of the forced distribution method?Negative work culture is propagated
Many feel that the forced distribution method of performance appraisal triggers negative behaviors like backstabbing, low morale, etc.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of performance appraisal methods?Advantages of Performance Appraisal:. Performance improvement: Appraisal systems always aim at improving the performance of employees. ... . Corrective actions: Any deficiency of employees can be detected and corrective steps can be taken through appraisal system. ... . Promotions: ... . The Halo effect: ... . Rater bias: ... . Leniency or severity:. What is forced distribution method of performance appraisal?Forced distribution is a performance appraisal rating method requiring the rater to force employee ratings into a bell-shaped curve. For more information, see Managing Employee Performance.
|
