Forced rankings define controversial employees’ management tools that evaluate workers’ performance by using employee-to-employee comparisons. These systems of ranking have gained popularity among large corporations of the size of fortune 500 companies.
This has been attributed to a number of advantages which presumably outweigh the disadvantages associated with adopting and implementing the use of these employee evaluation systems.
Starting with the advantages, Alsever (2007) came across findings that revealed that these systems of evaluation jolt underperforming managers from their complacency.
This reputable scholar also acknowledge that they assisted in combating the unwanted incidences such as inflating performance ratings as is the case with most common conventional rating systems.
This was supported by Grote (2005) when he argued that they enabled independent verification of employees’ performance data. In addition, these systems have the advantage of reducing nepotism, unfair promotions and favoritism. Furthermore, they act as justifiable and legal means of narrowing down and retrenching underperforming employees.
Despite having the above advantages, the following were identified as their disadvantages: These systems call on the retrenching and rehiring of best performers which has proved a costly measure to some financially-stretched companies (Alsever, 2007).
Furthermore, established firms such as Microsoft, Capital One and Ford are incurring huge legal expenses as a result of suits filed by sacked former employees. These employees considered the systems unfair and discriminating them based on their age and gender.
To add, most critics associate the systems with creating competitive environments that limit teamwork, creativity, result in unethical and cutthroat behaviors amongst others.
On the other hand, Grote (2005) opined that the culture of forced ranking kept off some high-potential applicants from expressing interest in working with companies implementing these approaches.
Deliveries of organizational-training programs (also renamed training delivery methods) are group of materials and techniques used by trainers in structuring their training tools or programs.
They are important to employees’ overall success because they assist in determining their appropriate learning objectives and hence appropriate training methods. Examples of such methods include cognitive methods such as discussions, lectures and case studies.
They influence target groups by demonstrating the relationships among themes of study. This leads to acquisition of knowledge and change in participants’ attitudes.
Other than cognitive methods, other examples of training delivery methods are business games, behavior modeling and in-basket techniques. They influence audiences by allowing trainees or participants to practice ethics in simulated or real fashions.
According to Axson (2010, p.25), the key components within a performance management plan are the systems (on organizational and personnel structures, project limitations and risks), information, and processes (on planned collaborations).
All these are used by managers in strategizing, monitoring execution, forecasting employee performance and making decisions.
It is recommended by various authors that project evaluators should posses the ability to measure or judge key performance indicators. This is drawn from the significance that they form benchmarks for ascertaining the project progress and status (Mosse & Sontheimer, 1996, p.1).
To expound on this explanation, the author established that quantification of the performance indicators helped in organizing project information in a way that clarified the existing relationships among project variables.
These variables are unlimited to project inputs, outputs, and outcomes. This promotes and enables the identification of problems and opportunities with a view of providing solutions that enhance the successful attainment of project aim and goals.
References
Alsever, J. (2007). What is forced ranking?CBS News. Web.
Axson, D.A.J. (2010). Best practices in planning and performance management: Radically rethinking management for a volatile world. 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey.
Grote, D. (2005). Forced ranking: Making performance management work.Harvard Business School. Web.
Mosse, R. & Sontheimer, L.E. (1996). Performance monitoring indicators handbook. World Bank Technical Paper No.334. Washington D.C: The World Bank.