Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T11:28:17.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Susan M Stewart ,
Melissa L Gruys  and
Maria Storm
Susan M Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Western Illinois University, Quad Cities, Moline IL, USA
Melissa L Gruys
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton OH, USA
Maria Storm
Affiliation:
Dale Carnegie-Chicago, Downers Grove IL, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

human resource managementperformance managementperformance systemperformance appraisalforced distributionlegal risks
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 168 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, R (2001) Companies turn to grades and employees go to court, The New York Times, 03 19, 150(51697).Google Scholar
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.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
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.Google Scholar
Gary, L (2001) The controversial practice of forced ranking, Harvard Management Update, 06 10: 3–4.Google Scholar
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.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
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.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
Lawler, E III (2002) The folly of forced ranking. Strategy+Business, 28:1–5http://www.strategy-business.com/press/16635507/20290 accessed 1 12 2008.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
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.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