I just read an article on Yahoo that Amazon is changing its forced rankings of employees. They call it the Hunger Games approach to performance ranking. I wish Chevron would do the same thing. Pitting employees against each other is terrible for moral, especially if you have an entire team of high performers, but are forced to rank one of them a 3 because you have no choice. It gets even worse when your own manager is your grade level and they point it out right before PASA sessions begin.
12 replies (most recent on top)
Twenty years ago Management admitted that forced ranking was a serious mistake as it encouraged the wrong behaviors. I guess the current Management has decided that they can't learn from history and plan to repeat the errors.
Hub - I work with her, or it as well. It is an amazing reality show. After years of this activity, one comes to know upper management approves.
Only rank 1s and 3s leave the rest its a pain when ranking comes along if you have a big team and let the 2s coast along no writing required
No names, bro, site rules. Admins will nuke the whole thread.
I totally agree, I hated the forced ranking session. I thought it attracted a lot of unnecessary competitiveness with employees (rather than working together) and encouraged favouritism. I think there are better options for performance management.
Name please, 1hxb.
I work with an employee who tries to subvert the performance of everyone else in her (err, I mean his or her) pay grade; no collaboration. That is what you get and it's not policed.
OP Not every BU in CVX force ranks the bottom of the scale. I'm guessing that some may. Having said that, I'd like to hear your proposed alternative. I've been where people in the same PSG were paid exactly the same....regardless of their contribution. Someone busting their butt got exactly the same as someone sitting and doing as little as possible but still getting the job done. I completely agree the current system is not perfect and bad leaders can totally screw it up. FYI.....there is no perfect system. I've thought about this many times but I haven't come up with a better system but maybe you have. I'd like to hear it.
@qxv, its presumed that the higher your pay grade is, the more you are expected to contribute to the company's goals and bottom line. That being said, your end pay is already taken into account in the expectations the company has of you to produce. The rankings (forced or not) is done to reward or punish the employees within their respective pay grade grouping. Everything else that can skew the intended results of ranking sessions has to do with your representation in those sessions, the main one being your supervisor and/or manager. Whether their personality is passive or aggressive makes all the difference. If you boss is a wuss, change work groups as quickly as possible.
Sure not "everyone" contributes the same, but does that mean "no one" contributes roughly the same as "some" others ? Sometimes you get pretty much the same from more than one person, but yet you have to rank them somehow even if it's artificial.
There is a middle ground between the two extremes, or atleast there could be without forced ranking top to bottom.
I guess if everyone contributed the same they would deserve the same ranking and pay. Turns out, they don't.
What's funny is when companies that do forced ranking also ask for Co worker feedback (within same ranking pool) to determine your ranking. Yeah.....think about that for a moment in case you don't realize the stupidity of this concept right away.....