Question 3Should you use profiling or stack ranking to forcibly remove low performers?
|
|
|
Josh Bersin says
|
|
Our research shows that approximately 40% of all organizations use ranking or stack ranking to force the organization to separate high from low performers. This works very well in most organizations - it forces a rigorous assessment of performance, increases standards, and tends to wash out managers who are too lenient or are themselves low performers. ...more |
|
|
|
|
Peter Cappelli says
|
|
The only advantage of forced ranking systems is that it is easier for the evaluators to use. More generally, how bad the performance of employees should be before you get rid of them is a complicated judgment call based in part on the likelihood that future performance can be improved, as well as in most organizations ethical issues around how much of their poor performance was within their control. ...more |
|
|
|
|
Richard Hadden says
|
|
In a word, no. It’s inaccurate, arbitrary, and rarely produces improvements in individual or organizational performance. ...more |
|
|
|
|
Sharlyn Lauby says
|
|
Managers need to measure performance to the company standard, not compare employees to each other. If someone isn’t performing to standard, managers need to coach their employees. ...more |
|
|
|
|
Ed Lawler says
|
|
The use of forced distribution ratings and forced terminations is a great example of a leadership failure. Managers should not be forced to either fire a fixed percentage of the individuals who work for them or to rate some percentage of their employees as poor performers. ...more |
|
|
|
|
Libby Sartain says
|
|
Every environment if different. But, organizations can no longer to afford people who are not capable of performing at expected levels. ...more |
|
|
|
