Slashdot Mirror
Fighting the Forced Ranking of Employees?
Allen asks: "The company I work for has a forced ranking system for performance reviews. Employees are ranked from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, in a bell curve arrangement. Department managers are required to identify: 10% as 5s (excels), 20% as 4's (exceeds), 50% as 3s (fully meets), 15% as 2s (partially meets), and 5% as 1s (requires action). In an department of 100 employees, this means that 5 employees must be identified and labeled as ones, and at least 20 employees as below average. The net result is every employee in the department is competing against their peers to increase (or maintain) their ranking. We're supposed to work together as a team, and support each other to get the product out the door, but the forced ranking system encourages us to instead stomp on each other, and stab each other in the back, in order to secure a higher ranking. That and, after working our collective rears off to get a new product out the door, several of us were given below average rankings that we believe are undeserved. How would you fight a forced ranking system at your job? I enjoy the technology I work on, and I enjoy working with my peers, but this forced ranking system is very demoralizing."
Sounds like an academic department in a university. No where else is the competition so high for stakes that are so low. (source unknown) Heh.
-Sean
After all, 50% of the employees are below average at any given company. Might as well cut out the deadwood.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Unionize and adopt a more preferable performance review structure as part of your bargained contract. It'll work wonders.
1. Start looking for a new job. That type of ranking system just leads to misery
2. Let someone in HR know how you feel, and how you think it will negatively affect the performance of your group as a team. Do this officially, in person.
3. Obtain new job, as HR will ignore you, because it was their crummy idea in the first place.
4. Write well thought out letter, addressed to your boss, CC'ing the HR department head, your department head, and the CFO, letting them know why you are leaving. Won't help you, but may help some of the poor schmucks that are still there.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
Yeah, I have seen this as well - and all it leads to is employees 'hanging' each other and resentment when you get a crap mark in your review. I got an Average mark this year - again. When I protested this, I was told that I was doing the work expected of me. But I said, what of all the extra work I do outside of what you ask me to do? Oh, we expect you to do that............ I KNOW that I am a hard worker and do more than that average, and I do it good! I just give up at that point. I will be gone from the team in 90 days, that is the deadline I have set myself. I will go to another team or just leave for another job. They are getting plentiful again - honest!
OTOH, the "forced" rankings are, in my opinion, a good thing. It requires managers to not take the easy way out and just rank (relatively) poor performers as "average" and avoid confrontation. Also, it allows people to know where they stand within the company. The company I work for uses a system somewhat like the OP's, and though initially I was against it, after giving it some thought I think it's a good thing.
As for the backstabbing, etc. -- that is a problem that management needs to address. That sort of thing usually becomes pretty obvious after a short time and it shouldn't be tolerated. If those who are ranked lower than they want to be are given the support of management to address their areas of weakness, they can (and will) move up in ranking, unless everyone else does a better job of improving.
The company I currently work for has a rating system similar to the one you described. Recently, they started to enforce a quota for each of the rating categories because the vast majority of employees were being ranked as exceeding or far exceeding their manager's expectations. Now, I work with a stellar group of engineers, but if all of us are always exceeding our managers expectations, maybe they should raise their expectations.
When the quota system was introduced, we all bristled at the idea of being forced to participate. We have to get ranked on our teams (with anywhere from 3 to 10 people), ranked within our projects (10 to 100 people), and ranked within our department (~1000 people), although the department rankings are broken down into seniority groups. Frankly, its frightening because as the groups get larger and the managers further from the cube farm, its harder and harder to make decisions about who is doing good work, and who isn't. It also brings into question how it is that we demonstrate value to our management.
But after all of our moaning, we realized that what our managers were trying to do is establish some objective framework in which they could measure us against objective metrics. I would much rather have a manager be forced to rank me with my peers with a policy document in hand to help decide which of us is the most productive, rather than have him pick people to promote and give raises to without ANY objective metric or policy. I don't go out to bars with my boss, but I don't want that to effect my performance review.
My point is this - ranking systems are an attempt at objectively gauging the performance of individuals. Quota systems are in place so that managers don't opt out of the hard part of telling people that they aren't as productive as their peers. Its harsh, and it isn't flawless, but compared with the alternative of an entirely subjective promotions/raises process, I'll take the ranking.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
but the forced ranking system encourages us to instead stomp on each other,
No matter how well they appear to cover their tracks, stompers get a reputation and no one trusts what they say. Including bosses.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
at least you still get to keep your stapler, right?
Thanks for translating, because I couldn't figure out if he wanted us to form an organized crime cartel or lease earlier seasons of ourselves to national networks. :)
El riesgo vive siempre!
If the employees also got to rate each other on trustworthiness or teamwork, then the backstabbing would drop. It sound liek the current system rewards backstabbing. If you change the ranking mechanism so that screwing someone gets you a low rank, then you won't do it.
Ranking systems are not neccessarily bad, they just need to be designed to provide incentives for desirable behavior. If a company wants teamwork, then make that part of the ranking .
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
A company that decides to treat half their employees below average is a company that is doomed to fail, especially if the value created by the company is mainly created by employees (i.e. software, services, etc).
I know that by definition that ~50% of employees will be below average, but what counts is performance of these employees against the industry average, not against their immediate peers. That's what counts in the market anyways...
This is the best advice. If the company you are at identifies people who are working below average, this is good. If the employees sees this designation as an opportunity to improve this is good. If the employees feel threatened by this system, or see it as a source of internal competition, then management has failed. If management does not understand this failure, then you should just get out.
year or two ago, I was talking to a friend (a manager in another area), and he told me that after telling his people what their numbers were, he was told by his management to lower them to fit the expected distribution.
I love this logic. As a supervisor, I go back to my employees and tell them to lower their performance so they don't ruin the distribution. That's managing to numbers --- yeehaw!
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
- Attitude - This is very important. You must have a positive attitude about the company and your work. Let everyone know that you are excited about the company and moving up the ladder within the company. Never be satisfied with what you have, always want more.
- Your Boss - You have to find out from your boss what it takes to get a top rating. Have a one on one meeting with your boss and let your boss know that you really want a top rating. Get them to tell you what steps you need to take. Follow up and make sure you are on the right track throughout the year.
- Documentation - You can't count on your boss to document your progress so do it yourself. Keep track of every project you are on and every class you take that can help you in your job.
- Projects - Get involved in projects any way you can. Your company probably has Six Sigma or BPI. Take advantage of these opportunities. If you see something that needs improvement, write up a proposal and sumbit it to you boss or whoever is in charge of such things.
- Flexibility - This not only means being willing to work overtime, but it means working out of your area as well. Look for opportunities to cross-train in other areas. Be willing to take on additional responsibility for no additional pay. Be eager to learn.
- Be an Expert - Become an expert in your job. Even if your job is nothing but cleaning toilets, know everything about it.
- Be a Team Player - Customers aren't just the poeple at home using your product, your teammates are also your customers. Find out what you can do to make other people's jobs easier down the line. Never say "That's not my job." Be willing to help anyone.
- Do Things by the Book - Always try to follow company policies and processes.
- Accept Responsibility - If you mess up, don't be afraid to admit responsibility. Apologize for messing up and ask what you can do to fix the problem to make sure it doesn't happen again.
You don't have to stab people in the back to get a good rating, but remember that no one else is going to help you. You are the one who is ultimately responsible for your rating. Don't let others discourage you either. If someone calls you a "company man" or brown noser, just smile and shrug. Also remember that showing up every day and doing your job well is what they expect you to do. While this is admirable it will only get you and average rating. You have to go above and beyond to get that top rating. I know you can do it so get after it!Smeghead every day of the week.
I've been on both sides of this issue. I don't understand how techies can argue against the fact that half of their team is below average *for the team*.
Many posters have claimed that management is not doing their job if there are people at the bottom. But relative to others, there are always people at the bottom. Forced ranking seems to be the only way for a middle manager to get a picture of who needs work and to get the line manager to acknowledge it.
This forced ranking was popularized by the GE management book a while back, where people were ranked A/B/C with a breakdown of 10/80/10 percent.
Being in the 10% of C's doesn't mean you get fired, it is a tool for management to decide who to focus on. The correct solution might simply be to move to a different group or position better suited to the persons skills or interests. Or it might mean more training. Or yes it might mean they will be put on a performance plan to make managements expectations clear, possibly leading to termination.
Such need not be public. The forced rankings can be divorced from annual review ranks, where someone could receive a meets expectations and still be a C. It could be managements job to figure out how to make this merely good employee be great.
For example, you might have a developer who writes good code, but who is very slow because they don't use tools to automate there work. I've seen this a lot. Getting a traditionally IDE oriented developer to learn to use command line tools, perl, or a decent editor with macros can increase their productivity. You wouldn't just fire them off the bat because they aren't as good as your other developers.
I swear to god, you get the worst career advice on this site. No wonder everyone here always bitches about their jobs, or not being able to find a job, etc. You cannot have the arrogant attitude so many geeks have and expect to do well in the workplace.
It's a small world out there. NEVER leave a job without 2 weeks notice unless it's an emergency (or you're being sexually harasses, etc). That's your professional obligation, and if you ignore it, it may come back to bite you in the ass big-time. Never burn a bridge you don't have to, not matter how unfair, exploitative, or justplain lousy a former employer was.
That's not entirely true. IBM does use a numbering system (1-4 with 1 being roughly equivalent to "walks on water like Jesus"), but in my 7 years there, I never found, discovered, or believed that it was based on a bell curve-type assignment except for one year (2002) when the economy was crap, and our CIO at the time mandated that there would be no 1's given out that year without his express approval.
Coincidentally or not, I received a '1' that year and the two years previous to that. YMMV, so if you find yourself in the bottom of the pile, find another pile somewhere else. The only reason I was able to survive at IBM for 7 years was because I worked for an independently-operated subsidiary (Tivoli) for 5 of those years.
If I found myself in a company that rated people on a curve, guaranteeing that some percentage will receive low scoring each year, I wouldn't stay very long even if I was always at the top of that rating scale. It's a mentality problem that stretches all the way to the top.
Again, YMMV. If you're not happy, find some new cheese and move on.
Acutally, where I work management is very good about sharing with us the kind of numbers you speak of.
Good.
Again, I agree with most of the things you posted -- I just don't see them as any sort of argument against a ranking system of evaluation.
Well, ranking is very different animal from scoring which in turn is very different from scoring according to a predefined curve, which is often the next thing that happens after single number scoring is introduced.
Any good manager has his reports ranked -- it's critical. At any moment I know if disaster strikes, who the weak link is, and who has to be preserved. I keep this information close to my vest unless disaster is looming, in which case I will give the weak link heads up so he's not caught unawares. It doesn't do anybody any good to know what their rank is, and more to the point it doesn't do my employer any good. Also note that this rank is not a measure of the employee's talent, attitude, or virtuousness, but simply a ranking of the impact of the loss of that person on the team. I once worked with a guy who was by objective measures the weakest link -- least intelligent, least industrious, least knowledgeable. And this was in an outfit full of bright, knowledgeable, hard driving people. He turned out to be very important because he was the only person who didn't scare crap out of the customers. Mind you the other guys were respected, just that they didn't make normal people feel at ease. If I had been his manager, I'd have ranked him ahead of the more deserving employees, because he brought someting to the team that was missing. That's what capitalism is about: it's not rewarding virtue, its efficiently using resources.
Measurements are of course useful, if you have several good ones to work with. But you have to be aware of some simple facts about measurements. First, as pointed out above, in small to medium sample sizes, parameters like performance or height that vary widely will never fit a bell curve by inspection. Also: no one measure can tell it all. Trying to boil down a person to a single number is really a form of laziness: I don't want to think about how to use this person most effectively, just give me a number. Having a battery of scores on which an employee could be described would be useful, if you (A) had the instruments to measure these dimensions, and (B) still had latitude for judgement. Lacking good instruments for measuring these qualities, employees can still be evaluated using qualitiative judgements in these areas.
Measurements that are forced to fit a curve are completely worthless. In such a system employees are not being measured, they are being sorted into ranked pigeonholes and then this rank is being treated as statistically rational data. These scores are presumably compared across departments, which is pure malarky, one step down the ladder of statistical meaninglessness from adding up eye color. The practical example of this is two managers, one with a team that is composed of the best employees in the company, the other which is is composed of the worst. By "grading on a curve", we have made the two teams look identical, whereas we'd be better off dropping everyone on team B than losing a single member of team A.
Forcing each manager to fit his employees to any predefined curve is antithetical to the very concept of measurement. It's the ultimate laziness: give me a number -- but don't give me the real one, give me one that suits my needs.
That said, it's perfectly understandable why higher ups should wish for such a system. If it worked, it would be possible to make staffing decisions based on a simple arithmetical formula, and eliminate the need for judgements to be made at any level of management above the direct supervisor. In fact such a system would be too good, since you could replace managers with spreadsheets.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree, some times burning bridges is necessary.
Many moons ago, I was leaving a job which still needed my skills. They weren't able to find someone to replace me and I agreed to stay on as "on-call" working 10-20 hours a week until a replacement was found. On my last "official" work-day as a full time employee, my final pay-check was supposed to be provided to me (arrangements had already been made). In stead, the payroll department insisted that I wasn't to get my final check until the last day of the month (as was the practice with all "on-call" personnel -- by the way, my last day happened to fall on the first of the month.
I spent two days argueing against the corporate buracracy. I gave up, filed an official "resignation letter" and demanded my final paycheck within 48 hours (as required by california law) and stated that failure would result in a complaint to the labor board and applicable fines.
I had my check the same day, I refuesed to work "on-call" and the company lost about 30% of their clients (averaging about $800k/month) due to their inflexability.
End result: my old employeer bacame more "employee friendly". It had been once, when privately owned -- during my time there, they were sold to Corning and became bottom-line-zombies. The loss of a few million in revenue tought them that happy employees == better bottom line.