Comments on: Forced Ranking is Stupid

By: bodazhang

bodazhang — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:30:41 +0000

http://www.tjtools.com 发电机
http://www.a688.net/fax.htm 上海律师
http://www.3ccenter.com 数码相机
http://www.3ccenter.com 数码摄像机
http://www.xhhj.com.cn/prod.htm 离心机
http://www.neworldonline.org 英语培训
http://1shengjiangji.shop263.com 升降机
http://www.3ccenter.com 奥林巴斯数码相机
http://www.sunresin.com 吸附树脂
http://www.xaxinfang.com 新型织机配套设备

By: Krishna

Krishna — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:00:59 +0000

Hi,
A lateral question. Is the primary goal of an organization to foster competition? I have seen many managers believe that competition unlocks performance and motivates the performers but in todays workplace, where roles and definitions are getting more and more ambiguous and intangile to measure, as well as where most of the work gets done as a part of teams, is this still the best way to improve performance?
Krishna

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:50:21 +0000

Are you suggesting that all forms of competition have negative consequences? If not in which circumstances can competition help?

By: David Vukovic

David Vukovic — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:49:51 +0000

I recently left the employ of a manager with this exact mind set of forced ranking.
Force rank the crew and according to him the good will move on to other jobs and those that he wants will stay.
On said managers shelf was the book ‘The 48 Laws of Power’ by Robert Greene and Joost Elffers. Please see (http://www.tech.purdue.edu/Cgt/Courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm) for a synopsys of these 48 laws.
After looking over this list, I find that this narcistic manager followed these laws to a ‘T’.
I propose that the manager that believes in forced ranking manages by fear, and is following these laws of power.
Law 31
Control the Options: Get Others to Play with the Cards you Deal
The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn.
Law 17
Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability
Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other peopleÂs actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.
Law 15
Crush your Enemy Totally
All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. (Sometimes they have learned this the hard way.) If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation: The enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit.
All the best and keep in touch,
David*Vukovic
Houston Texas

By: Earl Everett

Earl Everett — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:25:09 +0000

I first encountered this idea a few years ago when the senior management of the company I was with became enamored of it while group-reading Jack Welch’s (of GE) first book.
Defensively, I read it, and was struck by a point the book made that seems to be constantly overlooked or ignored. GE’s experience implementing this found that a manager new to a given group (i.e. in his or her 1st year) could more-or-less objectively identify the bottom 10% to be zapped. The process still worked, but marginally so, during year 2, and that by year 3, the manager had come to identify so closely with the group that objectiveness was no longer possible. (I remember that it recounted tales of long dead or departed employees being tagged, for example.)
I agree with Johanna that it’s fundamentally a stupid idea, but if it’s going to be implemented, a program of manager rotation must be implemented as well. No one talking about this seems to recognize this, or the additional issues that will bring up.

By: Thierry Thelliez

Thierry Thelliez — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:55:23 +0000

At the end of the article they say that they did not factor morale in the simulation…
I cannot not beleive it. What could more important than morale? You probably get an order of magnitude more productivity from an empowered and motivated staff.
Can someone send this genius a copy of ‘Emotional Intelligence’?
Thierry

By: Chip Patton

Chip Patton — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:15:25 +0000

I heard an editorial on NPR’s Marketplace yesterday (3/8/2005) suggesting this type of system be adopted with government employees. He talked about how the top 10% should be richly rewarded, these are your innovators, your up-and-comers, your movers-and-shakers and your bottom 10% should be put on probation, to improve or to be subsequently dismissed.
I see these systems as only being good for that top 10% and maybe for those few on the bottom who are shaken up enough to find a better fit, internally or externally. The rest of the bottom are devastated, at least temporarily. But the bigger damage is to the middle 80% who are disenfranchised. They now have little feedback about whether they are within reach of the top or in danger of falling off the bottom. And little reward for their steady work. In any case they have been broadly brushed as average and you can expect them to perform no better than that from this point forward.

By: Steve S

Steve S — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:30:47 +0000

Here, here! I agree. I’ve seen it done (actually supposedly going on now) but I do not believe it will last. There are too many opportunities for inconsistency. It does provide an opportunity for an honest to good discussion about whose doing what, but you know, that should happen anyway without going this malarky.