The forced distribution method is not a fair method for ranking employees. For example, imagine there were three distinct c

The forced distribution method is not a fair method for ranking employees. For example, imagine there were three distinct categories for improvement: excellent, good, and satisfactory. The employees within the organization’s performance did not vary that much. It would cause employees that may be doing very well to be categorized in a rank that does not express their true performance. This can decrease the morale of the employees within the organization and potentially cause a deficit in productivity over time. Employees can either use this data to encourage themselves to work harder or choose to give up because their efforts are not being appreciated through the ranking.  

As an HR professional within an organization, I would not recommend the use of forced ranking. I think it can be a hindrance if not used properly. The only way that I imagine it working is if the data from employees’ performance varies a considerable amount. Then it would be easier to determine the ranks between employees.  

If the forced distribution method were used within this course and I received a failing grade after receiving an 80 as a final grade, I would be livid. To go from a B- to an F is a devastating jump that will negatively impact not only my GPA but can delay my graduation date. I would request a meeting with my professor and respectfully try to explain the absurdity of the new grading system. I would also try to persuade them to change their mind. I would say that by changing the system not only did they fail students that had been doing well in the course, but they also created a valid reason for students to appeal their grade. Depending on how many students choose to appeal their grade, this could look bad on them for their teaching practices as a professor.

2.  I do not think the forced distribution method is a fair representation of staff as it literally forces management to place staff in a predetermined boxes. It is effective at discouraging management from succumbing to the halo or horn effect in terms of greatly misrepresenting staffs weaknesses and strengths but it can be detrimental when there are more strong employees than allotted for specific rating categories. This can definitely lead to disengagement if staff are rated lower than they feel is appropriate because management was forced to categorize staff with limited space for high performers. Is it likely that all staff are high performers? Probably not. However, it is likely that there are not a great deal of underperformers either and they will still be placed in an underperforming category, which will likely affect their pay raise and/or bonus potential. Essentially, there is going to be poorly ranked individuals and if they perform poorly then that is fine but if management is forced to find and rate staff as poor performers when compared to their staff, it can lead to some strife. I think that the forced rankings method can be a useful tool in gathering preliminary data and comparing staff to one another in preparation of performance evaluations, especially in organizations where there is drastic differences between staff members. Additionally, this can certainly encourage high performance and a competitive atmosphere amongst staff members in an attempt to avoid the bottom rungs. As far as an educational setting, I do not agree with the grade of a B- strictly based on being assigned to a lower ranking of “worst performers” simply because my professor had to put me somewhere. Instead, I would prefer my grade be based upon my performance and my ability or inability to meet the expectations of the course. I would say "Please reconsider, based the entirety of my performance, Dr. Chullen."  Again, it can be used as a tool for overall performance ratings but should be used with other considerations and not be exclusively used.