Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Forced distribution performance evaluation systems: Advantages, disadvantages and keys to implementation

  • Susan M Stewart (a1), Melissa L Gruys (a2) and Maria Storm (a3)
Abstract

Some 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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Abelson, R (2001) Companies turn to grades and employees go to court, The New York Times, 03 19, 150(51697).
Amalfe, CA and Adelman, H (2002) Forced rankings: The latest target of plaintiff's employment lawyers, accessed at http://www.gibbonslaw.com/news_publications/articles.php?action=display_publication&publication_id=790 on 1 12 2008.
Bates, S (2003) Forced rankling, HR Magazine, 06: 6368.
Boyle, M (2001) Performance reviews: Perilous curves ahead, Fortune, 05 28: 187188.
Briarty, MA (1988) Performance appraisal: Some unintended consequences, Public Personnel Management, 17: 421434.
Dowling, P, Welch, D and Schuler, R (1999) International dimensions of human resources. Cincinnati OH: South Western College Publishing.
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): 3159.
Frieswick, K (2001) Truth and consequences: Why tough ‘360-degree’ reviews and employee ranking are gaining fans, CFO Asia, 07/August, accessed at http://www.cfoasia.com/archives/200107-25.htm on 1 11 2008.
Gary, L (2001) The controversial practice of forced ranking, Harvard Management Update, 06 10: 34.
General Electric (2000) 2000 Annual Report: Letter to Share Owners, accessed at http://www.ge.com/investors/financial_reporting/annual_reports.html on 1 12 2008.
Guralnik, O, Rozmarin, E and So, A (2004) Forced distribution: Is it right for you?, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3): 339345.
Guralnik, O and Wardi, LA (2003) Forced distribution: A controversy, Society for Human Resource Management White Paper, 08.
Hadden, R (2004) Forced rank performance appraisal: don't show real picture. http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2004/07/19/smallb4.html accessed on 1 12 2008.
Hempel, PS (2001) Differences between Chinese and Western managerial views or performance, Personnel Review, 30(2): 203226.
Hofstede, G (1980) Culture's consequences: international differences in work related values. Beverly Hills CA:Sage.
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): 315.
Kinsman, M (2002) Being good but irritating doesn't work, The San Diego Union-Tribune, 01 22: C1.
Krames, JA (2002) The Jack Welch lexicon of leadership, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lawler, E III (2002) The folly of forced ranking. Strategy+Business, 28:15http://www.strategy-business.com/press/16635507/20290 accessed 1 12 2008.
Macdougall, N (1991) The story behind salary increases, CMA – the Management Accounting Magazine, 65: 34.
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): 2140.
Meisler, A (2003) Dead man's curve, Workforce Management, 06.
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): 87107.
Olson, CA and Davis, GM (2003) Pros and cons of forced ranking and other relative performance ranking systems, Society for Human Resource Management Legal Report, 03, accessed at http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/lrpt_published/CMS_003991.asp on 1 December 2008.
Osborne, T and McCann, LA (2004) Forced ranking and age-related employment discrimination, Human Rights, 31: 69.
Schleicher, DJ, Bull, RA and Green, SG (2008) Rater reactions to forced distribution rating systems, Journal of Management, vol. 0: pp. 0149206307312514v1.
Schrage, M (2000) How the bell curve cheats you, Fortune, 141: 296.
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: 132
Truby, M (2001) Age-bias claims jolt Ford culture change, The Detroit News, 04 29.
Vance, A and Davidhizar, R (1998) Motivating the minimal performer, Hospital Topics, 76(4): 812.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Management & Organization
  • ISSN: 1833-3672
  • EISSN: 1839-3527
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-management-and-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed