Rating system

Would you consider a forced distribution model of performance management to be an effective tool for managing talent in an organization? Explain why or why not. Consider your own organization. If the goal is to make supervisors differentiate between employees when rating performance, what other options might work better? Explain why and justify your claims. Support your response with an example.

According to Business Dictionary (2016), forced distribution is “a rating system used by companies to evaluate their employees”. Under this method, individuals are evaluated and rated as poor, good, or excellent. In the teaching field, we have performance evaluations that are completed yearly. They rate the teachers as highly effective, effective, needs improvement, or not effective. Luckily, I’ve had only highly effective and effective throughout my career.

From a personal experience, it can be a hit or miss to use a forced distribution model of performance management. When teachers get evaluated, they have formal evaluations as well as informal evaluations called a walk through. Teachers get evaluated based on the specific framework that has been selected by the state, district, or school. When I lived in Florida, the district used something called the Danielson Framework, which consisted of four domains: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities (“Danielson Group: The Framework”, 2016). Teachers were given a score from 0-4 based on the criteria. If teachers did not get effective or highly effective, they were either put on probation or let go, and salaries have also been tied to teacher evaluations. One of the problems with this framework is being unable to truly evaluate all 22 elements that fall under each component. Although a teacher may be doing certain things, it is impossible to observe all elements within a short period of time unless it is all staged, which would not be a true representation. Accommodations such as selecting a few elements per observation to evaluate had to be implemented in order to allow focus on each element per visit.

Just because something was not observed one day within the 47 minutes that the administrator was there, that does not mean the teacher did not have the talent. These performance evaluations were focused on one day versus every day of the year. What might work better is to evaluate the employees based on their daily performance such as: professionalism (dress, showing up to work on time, organization, etc.), knowledge, relationships with others/working well with others, etc. Although the Danielson Framework had the four categories, they were only used once or twice a year. It would benefit everyone to observe the employees more frequently to ensure that they are doing what they should be doing.

The performance management cycle consisting of planning, acting, monitoring, and reviewing is a great cycle that should constantly be practiced to improve performance, communication, and relationships (Armstrong, 2014, p. 337).

Simona

Armstrong, M. & Taylor, S. (2014). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice (13th ed.). London: Kogan: Page.

“Danielson Group » The Framework”. (2016). Retrieved January 22, 2016, from https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/

“What is forced distribution?” definition and meaning. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2016, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/forced-distribution.html

Discussion 2

GREGG

M6D1: Forced Distribution Model

Forced distribution of performance ratings allows the organization to differentiate among employees. Forced distribution is a set of guidelines to highlight the top performers and highlight the ones who aren’t performing as well. The differentiation appears is among the visible and less-visible employees, forced distribution allows all managers to understand the principles and make a clearly divided. forced distribution allows for strict rules.

In the Army, there is currently a system in place for evaluation and in recently change and even with the change it is a broken system. No one will be happy with how their evaluation turn out. The goal is to point out who is performing and who isn’t and create a plan to develop these employees. In addition, it is not happen and their is a clear line between the visible and less-visible employees. The organization system called Objectives and Key Results (OKR) currently used by Google.

The Objective that are quantifiable that help you hit your objective and your definitive and measurable. Google has a 0-1 scale and the goal is not to get a 1. but the aim is for 0.7. Google post all OKR from the CEO to the lowest level. The focus is on major goals and let’s everyone know what is important. Within the company. you see all the OKR and scores for the quarter, so you have a chance to compare your goals. This plan tries to eliminate the fighting within and focus on the working together aspect of the group. This is the hardest part for someone to accept, if you are worried about your evaluations and your career. Managers must express this portion to their employees. Buying in the idea that the group’s goals are larger than the indivudal’s goals.

Reference:

Gibson, J. (2014, February 03). How Startups Can Tap Into Google’s Secret Sauce: OKRs. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/231202

Discussion 3

RUFUS

To rate employee fate

A forced distribution model such as the three categories high potential, steady performers and performance to be retained depends on the type of organization. High potential individuals can move beyond their current position to another position or a different organization. These individuals could change their position from every two to three years and come to a comfort point in a specific position they enjoy. Considering a government employee position, the second part of this model could apply if they are working in a GS-6 office position or GS-6 planning job. Being a steady performer and being content is all they need to do. Considering a small company that builds strobe lights or assembles cable vision control box parts, high potential and steady performers will make it. Performance to retain type of employees will not produce enough in production so these types of employees could possibly get laid off.

Considering my organization other options that would work better can be finding out what employees are good at and weak at. Using this information have employees cross share to help improve each others weaknesses.

At your organization, are all employees invited to apply for participation in programs for high potential? Announcements are not always posted so an employee must locate these type of opportunities on a designated web site ran by the company. Talent management and employee engagement is most certainly a shared sense of openness and fairness. Keeping the door of opportunity open is the key to holding onto good employees depending on the type of position, benefits and what is offered long term.

Many times when an employee stays with a position of low pay there is some type of long term benefits such as good retirement, health insurance or a matching retirement savings. To manage talent we should look at what drives the individual and understand their motivation. If they have little motivation then they will be in the performance to be retained category.

Edward, S. (2012). Maintaining the delicate balance when developing high potential programs. Retrieved from http://vlib.excelsior.edu/login?

Discussion 4

JOSHUA

Forced Distribution

The Air Force (AF) just switched to forced distribution within the last year. Up until now, I did not realize this originated in the civilian sector. There have been some criticism across the AF on forced distribution, but overall, it appears to be gaining popularity with the majority. I do think forced distribution is an effective tool for managing talent. It allows people to see where they stand among their peers when it comes to an annual performance rating time. I have been in the AF for over 18 years now and I have seen many people promoted who really should not have been. A big part of that was because they were getting high (inflated) marks on their annual performance report, because at the time, there was not a quota system in place. Because of these inflated markings, Airmen (employees) were getting promoted, regardless of how they performed. Just as Armstrong (2014) mentioned, some (supervisors) wanted to avoid confrontation with the subordinates when it came to performance ratings (p. 341). Now that forced distribution is in effect, only the top performing Airmen will get the top ratings in their unit (organization), which will give them an edge on the annual promotion test. This might come as a shock to those who thought they were “cream of the crop,” but hopefully reality will set in and motivate them to do better the following year.

To aid in our performance management, feedback sessions are required to be held within 60 days upon assuming supervisory duties over an Airman and again midway between the start of the supervisory period and when that period ends by going over the annual performance report. The initial feedback session is for the supervisor to lie out expectations of the subordinate. The midterm feedback is to let the subordinate know how they are doing and what areas, if any, need improvement. Then comes the end of the reporting period where forced distribution is applied.

Reference:

Armstrong, M. (2014). Performance management. Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (13thed.). London: Kogan Page. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/excelsior/reader.action?ppg=259&docID=10854571&tm=1438712243338

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!