Forced Ranking Forces Fear: An Update
Robert Cenek
Post a Comment
An earlier post on forced rankings drew several responses. It’s a controversial subject, not unlike the occasional debate on the effectiveness of the HR function, as most recently highlighted by the Fast Company folks.
Interestingly, some recent activity at a Microsoft blog suggests that many of the troops are becoming increasingly disenfranchised, with some fingering their forced ranking system as one of the culprits. Incidentally, the blog offers other interesting insights into the inner sanctum of the software goliath.
See:
- Goals for a Brave New Microsoft Review and Compensation System
- Alternatives to Stacked Ranking?
- Internal Microsoft Compensation Documents Leaked
Jeffrey Pfeiffer takes some new – and renewed shots at forced ranking in his recently released book - Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management . The authors refer to a 2004 survey of more than 200 human-resource managers that found that even though more than half of them used forced ranking, they felt it produced such undesirable results as lower productivity, skepticism, reduced collaboration, and impaired morale. Breaking up teams by automatically firing the bottom 10% of workers can even be dangerous: The authors also referenced a National Transportation Safety Board study finding that 73% of commercial airline pilots' serious mistakes happen on crews' first day together, and suggested that this is an example of the dangerous situations that can arise through the arbitrary lopping off of the bottom rung of the organization.
More to follow!
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments