Summary
This case is of a non-unionized company that is of medium size with traditional practices and human resource policies. The performance supervision policy basically aims at awarding efficiency and punishing incompetence. Even if the results of how the evaluation process works, it acted as the determinant of promotion, disciplinary actions, and even transfer, a number of employees took it as fault-finding event that has no initiatives on how to improve on performance ( de Bakker, 2016) . The company’s performance management was strict in that if an individual goes below the acceptable level he is sent a warning, and also, asked to explain why he has declined. Whenever the employee keeps declining in their performance, they are transferred to another department and still watched closely for improvements expected ( de Bakker, 2016) . If they do not improve, they are given a notice and then their services are terminated. Due to lack of positive impact from the evaluation system, the manager and his team had to review the reasons why the system did not work, and also whether to continue using it or replace it.
Critical Thinking Questions
Forced Ranking as a Management System
Forced ranking is a type of relative-rating system, and a preferable management system due to various reasons although it has its cons well. It is a system that brings up and sustains a culture of high-performance (Schmitt, 2012). Additionally, there is usually a tough correlation between several years’ complete shareholder returns and a company with a great performance management system (Grote, 2005). Forced ranking also gives a chance to employees to know where they stand in terms of performance in the company. The management is also in a position to learn the challenges employees go through that hinder their performance, since performance management is the company’s priority. As said by Grote, (2005), forced ranking affects employees’ morale negatives, as well as, team performance since this system focuses on individual performance. Notably, forced ranking is a good systems although it should not be pushed too as it may promote competition rather than co-operation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Difference between Absolute and Relative-Rating Approaches
Absolute rating system is a method that is used in performance management where every employee is assessed individually without being compared to their colleagues. Accordingly, the absolute rating judgements are not wrong, it is just that they vary from one person to the next without necessarily having to compare their performance (Schmitt, 2012). If it is said to be above average, it means the employee has met the set standards.
Preference between Absolute and Relative System
As a manager I would prefer relative rating system as it focuses on the high performance of the company. However, due to its likelihood to interfere with cooperation as it majors with the spirit of competition, it is also good to recognize employees who have improved or have rather made commendable steps in their performance at work.
Differentiation among Workers’ System
I do not think devising an absolute system to guarantee differentiation among workers would be a good strategy. That is because, this might improve the level of performance of the employees, but hinder their cooperation at work. In that, there is a possibility of poor team work by the members.
Key Learning
Clearly, managers have a role to play in every organization and it is always good to know the challenges that their employees may be experiencing at work. These are some of the things that hinder their performance. From the summarized case above, the evaluation system being used in a company determines how competitive and cooperative the employees work in an organization.
References
de Bakker, F. (2016). Managing corporate social responsibility in action: talking, doing and measuring . CRC Press.
Grote, R. (2005). Forced ranking : making performance management work . Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Schmitt, N. (2012). The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection . New York: Oxford University Press.
