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."

Comments

Good system

[GigsVT]

After all, 50% of the employees are below average at any given company. Might as well cut out the deadwood.

Re:Good system

[I am Kobayashi]

Well your post got modded as funny, so I too will assume it was sarcastic.

But in my opinion this is a terrible system. The bell curve has no true logical basis. And even if it did, this system would still be flawed: assume a company of 1000 people split into 10 divisions of 100 people each. Under this system each of those 10 divisions must utilize this ranking system. But what if one division has all 100 of the "superstar" employees, and another has all the worst employees? Under this system, a certain percentage of really bad employees must be ranked as above average or "superstars" while a certain percentage of true "superstars" must be ranked at below average or failing.

I think any person who would implement such a system is a true "1" It is just an obviously bad system. They should simply allow each division head to rank at will, then essentially "meta-moderate" that persons rankings somehow. Have someone come in an audit the department from either the outside or from another department to see how accurate those rankings are... That would be a much better system...

Re:Good system

[kognate]

This actually works for the first few rounds. The problem is, let's say you have 100 employees. You probably have 10% of them that you could fire and be better off. So the first year you do that. You hire 10 more people to replace them. Now you've got
+1 fireable person and +9 better than that. repeat.
Pretty soon, you get to the point where you've burned off the dead wood and are now burning your future forest. Otherwise, you are saying that people's performance automatically degrades and/or the HR department can't hire for sh*t (both of which may be true).

Anyway, I realize the parent might be joking, but seriously, these forced ranking things are only going to get more popular if for no other reason than lawsuit avoidance. You can't sue for a bad review if the hiring manager must give a certain percentage of "bad" reviews.

Re:Good system

[Dr. Evil]

In my experience, managers begin to keep people around specifically because they're bad (although not unacceptable) performers. You need them to assign them their low ratings. Juggle their rankings each evaluation so that they don't get fired, and occasionally trade them from department to department. When layoffs appear, shed them first... but don't shed them before then, because, just as there are quotas for evaluations, there are quotas for layoffs.

It's a stupid game.

Re:Good system

[michael_cain]

But in my opinion this is a terrible system. The bell curve has no true logical basis. And even if it did, this system would still be flawed: assume a company of 1000 people split into 10 divisions of 100 people each. Under this system each of those 10 divisions must utilize this ranking system. But what if one division has all 100 of the "superstar" employees, and another has all the worst employees?

Many years ago, exactly this type of situation was one of the principle reasons that I decided to quit being a manager. As part of a corporate reorganization, we had assembled a team that was truly excellent -- everyone had been in the top third of the performance "ladder" in their previous organization. The next department over had not done nearly so well in the reorg and had a lot of dead wood. During a budget crisis, each department was required to put together a 5% list of the people that they would let go (fortunately, the crisis was more imagined than real and no cuts were made). One of the last chores I did before I went back to just being on the technical staff was to discuss everyone in my group's career plan with them. For two of them, I had to suggest that they might want to look for a position in a different department so that they could be "stars" rather than "duds".

At that time, there were only a handful of places where I could do the work that I wanted to do, and all of them used a system like this. I could live with it as a worker, but not as a manager. Still not sure, despite many years, if retreating from management rather than staying on and trying to change the system was the right thing to do or not.

Organize the Shop

[XBruticusX]

Unionize and adopt a more preferable performance review structure as part of your bargained contract. It'll work wonders.

4 step process

[Ummagumma]

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.

Re:4 step process

[Anonymous Coward]

How about:

1. Talk a co-worker into using the 4 step process.

2. Repeat with other co-workers until conditions change or you have no co-workers left.

Well,

[borius]

at least you still get to keep your stapler, right?

Re:syndycate maybe?

[the Man in Black]

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. :)

Add a trust dimension to the ranking

[G4from128k]

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 .

Some tips from a top rated performer

[deadgoon42]

My company has a similar rating system only 1 is best and 5 is worst. I was rated a 1 this year for the first time after being rated a 3 every year since I began working there in 2000. Here is what I learned about getting a top rating.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Be an Expert - Become an expert in your job. Even if your job is nothing but cleaning toilets, know everything about it.
7. 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.
8. Do Things by the Book - Always try to follow company policies and processes.
9. 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!

Re:Some tips from a top rated performer

[gaj]

Damn, I've never (until now) posted "I'd mod you if I had points" posts, but:

I'd mod you +1 Insightfull if I had points.

Actually, I still couldn't, because I posted earlier. None the less, all the whiny posters to this story need to read this post and take it to heart.

The only addendums I'd make are:

4. Projects - Don't over-extend yourself, though. When you step up, you need to be able to execute.

8. Do Things by the Book - Know what the whole "book" says, not just the parts written down. And know when/how to break/change the rules when they are broken. Each organization has a mechanism for change, written or unwritten. If you're stuck in an organization that does not, get out -- down that path lies madness.

View from the other side...

[BrianCarlstrom]

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.