No matter where
you go employees hate forced ranking – the system by which all employees are
ranked as A Players (Top 20%), B Players (Middle 70%), and C Players (Bottom
10%). This is especially so when forced ranking is combined with “rank and
yank”, meaning the automatic dismissal of the C Players. Is this just a case of
employees being afraid of a cutthroat form of performance appraisal, or do they
have a legitimate beef?
We can credit
Jack Welch with popularizing the concept when he ran GE to such a great
performance record. From his perspective, Forced Ranking is a humane system of
performance management (Wall Street Journal in
a January 2012). Approximately 60% of
Fortune 500 companies still use the system, though some have expanded to five
categories over three. Many also insist they do not establish quotas for each
category.
And
yet, managers being human beings (most of the time), it seems unlikely that the
practice of forced ranking doesn’t force them to identify their A, B, and C
Players pretty sharply. This forces us to consider a conundrum. If a manager is
successful in getting his or her employees to meet or exceed their team
objectives, is it legitimate to assess some of those employees as poor
performers? Presumably, a manager who is achieving such success is holding
people accountable, removing obstacles, coaching up performance, and doing
everything necessary to produce desired results. What does it say when, at the
end of the year, that manager must stand up and declare some employees to be
crucial while others are expendable? What does that do to the group in
question?
