The Top 10 Reasons Why 'Forced ranking' Quota Systems Don't Work

Category: Management, Staff Development, Projects, Delegation, Leadership (AE439)

Originally Submitted on 7/30/2002.


In recent years some industrial leaders and major corporations have advocated a system of "forced ranking and elimination" of an arbitrary percentage (often 10%) of the lowest performing employees every year. Not all organizational experts agree that this is an effective system. Some believe that it can lead to an attitude of fear, unwillingness to make mistakes, and to stifled creativity. Here are some of the counter-arguments to forced ranking, summarized from an article by Edward E. Lawler III in 'strategy + business.'

1. Legal problems

The system invites legal challenges, and many courts have supported these challenges. Few companies are able to prove to the satisfaction of the courts that their quota systems accurately identify poor performers.

2. The statistics don't work

The theory assumes a normal curve (large numbers of individuals around the middle, flanked by a few "top" and "bottom" performers on either side). In fact statistics relating to normal curves are usually attained only with thousands of individuals, and assume random placement. Few teams or departments have so many members, and one hopes that none place their employees randomly.

3. Inequity across departments

Some teams or departments may consist entirely of superlative performers, yet in this system the bottom 10% will still be cut, whereas another team may be composed largely of poor performers, 90% of whom will be retained.

4. Inequity within departments

Some teams may have many individuals with almost no differences in performance between them, yet supervisors are still forced to identify 10% for elimination. This can lead to charges of unfair treatment, and to lower morale.

5. Long-term damage to morale

If continued year after year, once the initially identified poor performers have been eliminated, who is to be eliminated next? Those who were previously identified as satisfactory? New hires who have not yet had time to get up to speed? When employees are in a state of constant fear they rarely do their best work.

6. Reduced teamwork

The system encourages an 'each person for him/herself' attitude, and discourages teamwork. It also discourages people from asking others for help or for needed training, for fear that this will make them vulnerable to being identified as poor performers.

7. High cost of turnover

Some or all of the employees who are eliminated will have to be replaced, with the resulting costs and uncertainties of hiring and training replacements, and lower productivity in their early months. In addition, employees who are eliminated must have benefits continued, and may bring lawsuits.

8. No incentive to encourage growth in employees

Although intended to encourage improved performance, an arbitrary ranking system provides little chance or time for workers to improve, or for managers to find another job or department in which an employee may fit, and therefore perform, better. The incentive is to retain them so that they may be fodder for the next 10% elimination process.

9. Delays in needed firings

Managers who know that they will need to identify employees for elimination in a few months may deliberately not fire individuals who should be fired immediately, just in order to fill their quota during the elimination period. This can be destructive to the organization and to the morale of other employees.

10. The rich get rich...

Managers do not want to invest time and effort in the development of poor performers who are likely to be eliminated in the near future. Therefore, instead of helping them to develop their skills they may often spend their time working with the better performers who actually need less help.


About the Submitter

This piece was originally submitted by Diana Robinson, PhD., PCC, Personal Effectiveness Coach, who can be reached at Diana@ChoiceCoach.com, or visited on the web. Diana Robinson wants you to know: I believe in enhancing your life, your way... through Personal Effectiveness Coaching. For a free half-hour coaching call and/or to request free e-zines, please visit me at www.ChoiceCoach.com. The original source is: Edward E. Lawler III in 'The Folly of Forced Ranking,' strategy + business, 3rd quarter, 2002.


CoachVille Trains Coaches World Wide

Copyright 97, 98, 99, 00, 2001 CoachVille

This content may be forwarded in full, with copyright, contact, and creation information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit context. For other uses, permission in writing from CoachVille is required. Questions: email topten@coachville.com


Visitors:

Please use your browser controls to close this page & return to the selection page, or click to return to Top 10 home page.