Forced Ranking and Motivation - Case Study Example

? Forced Ranking and Motivation Forced Ranking and Motivation The main aim of any organization is to accomplish its strategic objectives within the stipulated time of work hours. For this to happen, a work plan is structured and agreed upon on how to commence, work according to plan and monitor the results. In this case, each employee is expected to perform assigned duties to their level best. The management usually attaches the individual results to the efforts put by each employee. This calls for performance appraisal. Performance evaluation refers to an official management process used in the assessment of job performance. It is usually done by use of periodical interviews conducted by managers or filling out questionnaires by supervisors and/or fellow subordinates. The results are afterwards analyzed and assessed (Spector, 2008). It is paramount to understand what forced ranking is with regard to performance appraisal before an individual gives an own opinion on whether it succeeds in motivation employees or not. Forced ranking is a contentious management tool that is used as an intervention of performance of organization’s employees. It is uses what statisticians refer to as a normal distribution curve to rank the employees from the highest performing to the poor performers in a given period of time. This is done after a series of periodical assessments of results using person-to-person comparisons. The premise behind this management tool is that in order for an organization to achieve its goals, they must categorize their best and worst performers. At this point, the management is left with employees at both extremes (Scullen, Bergey & Aiman-Smith, 2005). The next phase entails nurturing the best and rehabilitating or discarding the poor performers. In my opinion, forced ranking does not serve to improve results for any organization and does not motivate employees. To start with, whenever forced ranking results are completed, the majority of the employees fall at the mediocre level of the curve. Therefore, they feel comfortable that their jobs are still secure. This would lead to constant workers input that only saves them from being ranked as the poorest in an organization. In addition, the forced ranking does not portray the real picture of quality in any employee’s effort. When we consider motivation, forced ranking may sabotage the performance of highly rated employees. This is because, in any given appraisal activity, the method produces a normal curve irrespective of the performances staged by the employees (Pinder, 2008). In this case, an employee may have performed to the expected levels and capacity. These employees would expect to be recognized as having worked within their capacity thus providing exceptionally good results. However, they would still be ranked as a poor performer simply because some other employees have slightly better performances. According to the expectancy theory, the anticipation of the employee would affect his or her motivation towards work if the forced ranking places this kind of an employee at the poor performers’ level. The result would be a discouraged employee whose expectations of a reward do not come to be (Schultz & Nembhard, 2006). The obvious reaction after such an appraisal would lead to the employees comparing their respective performances. The poorly ranked employees would feel that the appraisal results were unfair whenever the perception of equal performances is imminent. According to the equity theory, the negative perception to unfairness would affect the employee’s compliance to perform to their capacity. Furthermore, some employees who are ranked higher would compare their rewards to others of similar positions (Spector, 2008). If such employees think that they have been under-rewarded, they may end up underperforming in the subsequent years. Therefore, this method of appraisal does not motivate employees. As mentioned above, the premise of the equity theory is based on the perception of evenhandedness of employees work and the recognition of their efforts in rewards form. Therefore, according to the employees, equity exists when they identify that rewards are equivalent to labor. Moreover, the employees also consider the rewards of others especially the colleagues on similar ranks in the organizations. Forced ranking may result to employees perceiving inequity in an organization. With the onset of such perception, employees may result to putting fewer efforts into their jobs, the bold ones would ask for better treatment, some would seek to impress the top level management with their work by comparison while other may eventually transfer or quit their jobs. Some of these negative reactions would be as a result of forced ranking (Scullen, et al. 2005). Even though the managers would have a different view on the issue of rewards and forced ranking, it is the perception of the employees that finally matter. Inequitable rewards will always result to negative reactions among employees. As head of a given department, I would use the exchange theory tool to motivate employees. The principle behind this theory is the proposition that members of a given organization should connect in a rational predictable relationship. I would make sure the management recognizes the importance of each employee and thus offer a give and take style of work relationship. Moreover, the management should understand that employees give their energy to assigned tasks in exchange for a pay. On the other hand, the management is required to provide conducive working conditions to ensure safety and maximum performance. This kind or relationship ensures that the employees feel appreciated in the organization thus they give their best of efforts in work. This theory also provides for group appreciation of employees who have jointly achieved a given organizational goal (Spector, 2008). In this case, the management would give a particular group the need recognition among the top level management and fellow subordinates. Whenever it comes to rewarding of the employees, I would ensure that the poor performers also receive some consolation prizes to encourage them to work harder and achieve greater rewards. This method of motivation creates a positive perception of the work place and the organization as a whole. Consequently, the employees perform beyond expectations thus meeting the organizations strategic objectives. Conclusion Organizations are always expected to perform according to their strategic plans. This includes expected performances by individual employees as well as team work. Therefore, managements should ensure that practical and psychological sensitive motivational methods and tools are used in order to create harmony in the working place. Motivation is key when it comes to employees’ performance. The forced ranking management tool is not effective as a motivational too since it does not give room for the psychological consideration of the employees. In addition, employees’ perception of the work place and the management also contributes a lot to their motivation (Pinder, 2008). The equity theory explains more on the perception of the employees towards the rewards extended to them after a given period of work. It also explains the comparisons made between the employees. The expectancy theory explains the anticipation of employees with regard to assigned tasks. References Pinder, C. C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior. New York: Psychology Press. Schultz, K., Schoenherr, T., & Nembhard, D. (2006). Equity Theory Effects on Worker Motivation and Speed on an Assembly Line. Retrieved from, http://www.hbs.edu/units/tom/pdf/kschultz.pdf Scullen, E. S., Bergey, P.K., & Aiman-Smith, L. (2005). Forced Distribution Rating Systems and the Improvement of Workforce Potential: A Baseline Simulation. Personnel Psychology. 58: 1-32 Spector, P. E. (2008). Industrial and Organizational Behavior. (5th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Read More