Responded Louis: “He can run, but he can’t hide.” In a forced ranking system, managers - and employees - have no place to hide. Managing in a forced ranking system reminds me a bit of the famous old line from Joe Louis before his fight with Billy Conn, who boasted he'd rely on his speed in the ring. Though some managers are outstanding in dealing with conflict, many (being after all only human) prefer to avoid or minimize it. As any manager knows, it's often easier to avoid difficult, painful performance-related conversations than to confront them head on. There’s no question in my mind forced ranking does bring disciplined rigor to the management process. The system did force managers to have hard conversations with employees that they might otherwise have avoided. Forbes subsequently featured posts including "The Terrible Management Technique That Cost Microsoft Its Creativity" by Frederick Allen, "The Management Approach Guaranteed To Wreck Your Best People" by Erika Andersen, and "The Case For Stack Ranking of Employees" by Robert Sher. Such systems are used by companies to identify, reward and weed out top and bottom performers.Īn article in Vanity Fair by Kurt Eichenwald (“Microsoft’s Downfall: Inside The Executive E-mails and Cannibalistic Culture That Felled A Tech Giant") triggered recent discussion. This month on there’s been a spirited dialogue around a controversial management technique – “stacking,” also known as "stacked rankings" and "forced rankings." All are names for performance evaluation systems in which organizations require set percentages of employees to be ranked in specific categories – for example, “top,” “good,” “fair,” “poor”… or "exceeds all expectations," "exceeds expectations," "meets expectations," "partly meets expectations," "fails to meet expectations," and so forth.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |