Ethics Rank and Yank (Essay Sample)

Ethics Rank and Yank
Name of Student
Institutional affiliation

Ethics Rank and Yank: Legitimate Performance Improvement Tool or Ruthless and Unethical Management?
Case Summary
Forced ranking is a system of performance appraisal that was popularized John Welch in his tenure at General Electric. The system aims at improving the performance level by getting rid of the bottom 10% of the performers and hiring of replacements. The top performers are rewarded and offered promotion or training. Some companies have used this system; including Microsoft, Ford Motor Company, and Conoco. The system has received challenges in terms of its impact on employees and increased rates of legal challenges, hence a controversial management practice. The system has led to increased competitiveness among workers that has led to the loss of teamwork hence a negative effect on productivity.
Critical Thinking Questions
Question 1
Forced ranking is a good performance management system. The system is based on the capability to identify and enhance individual performance within an organization. The system encourages employee accountability and effort towards the achievement of their goals. The cumulative effect of these personal goals is the improved performance of the organization; if it is founded on the principle of organization performance. The system also differentiates employees at different levels thus relinquishing the crowd perspective that is present in most organizations. The employees are aware of their requirements, and they understand their role of optimal performance. The system differentiates performers from non-performers, hence promoting a culture of performance within the organization.
Question 2
The absolute-rating judgments are wrong if it is analyzed in the individual performance perspective. This system generalizes the performance of employees into the group alternative; other than individual. The workplace encompasses and incorporates different talents that require to be deciphered independently, rather than generally. The high performers are not differentiated from average performers or low performers. The effect of such an approach is the reduced motivation of high performers and encouragement of mediocre performers who prey on the performance of other employees (Grote, 2005).
Question 3
As a manager, I would prefer the relative rating system that centralizes on the performance of each employee. Though this system encourages individual performance, it encourages the input of the employees in the production process. It also encourages accountability and motivation towards achievement of the individual goals. The incorporation of these individual goals into organizational goals can encourage parallel teamwork within the organization.
Question 4
An absolute-rating system cannot differentiate the performance of workers at the workplace. The essence of the absolute rating system is to promote teamwork under a generalized performance environment. This system cannot differentiate performance because every employee gives an effort that culminates into organizational performance. Differentiating such employees can lead to the emergence of frictions within the organization due to resistance by the other employees towards the recognition of other employees (Gerard, 2006). It also biases the production and rating process towards an individualistic approach. Therefore, an absolute system cannot be created in an employee differentiation system.
Key Learnings
The key learnings from this excerpt is the need to define the employee rating system consistent with the organizational culture. The choice of the absolute rating syste...