Forced ranking and motivation Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Forced be and motivating - Case Study ExampleIt is usually through 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 preponderant to understand what hale ranking is with regard to practiseance appraisal before an individual gives an own purview on whether it succeeds in motivation employees or not. Forced ranking is a contentious perplexity instrument that is used as an intervention of performance of organizations employees. It is uses what statisticians refer to as a regulation distribution curve to rank the employees from the highest performing to the poor performers in a devoted period of time. This is done after a series of periodical assessments of results using person-to-person comparisons. The stick in behind this management dick 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, squeeze 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 employees 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 t he 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 more or less 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 demoralized employee whose expectations of a reward do not come to be (Schultz & Nembhard, 2006). The obvious reaction after such(prenominal) 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 cognizance of equal performances is imminent. According to the equity theory, the n egative perception to unfairness would affect the employees 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