Forced Ranking And Technology Preparation In This Assignment

Forced Ranking And Technologypreparationin This Assignment You Will P

Prepare a 10–15 slide PowerPoint presentation in which you: Provide a title slide (as indicated in the formatting requirements below). Develop a forced ranking performance evaluation system to improve the overall performance of the selected organization. Prioritize the pros and cons with the greatest impact on the effectiveness of the forced ranking performance evaluation system. Provide a rationale for your response. Suggest three key implementation steps for the forced ranking performance evaluation system. Propose three ways in which the selected organization could use technology as an enabler for the forced ranking performance evaluation system. Provide a summary slide that addresses the key points of your presentation. Narrate each slide, using a microphone, and indicate what you would say if you were actually presenting in front of an audience. Use four external sources to support your responses. Note: Wikipedia and other websites do not qualify as academic resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: Format the PowerPoint presentation with headings on each slide and relevant graphics (photographs, graphs, clip art, et cetera), ensuring that the presentation is visually appealing and readable from 18 feet away. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Include a title slide containing the title of the assignment, your name, the professor's name, the course title, and the date. The title slide is not included in the required slide length.

Paper For Above instruction

In the modern business environment, employee performance evaluation systems are critical in shaping organizational success, motivating staff, and aligning individual goals with company objectives. One such system, forced ranking, has been both lauded for its ability to identify top performers and criticized for potentially fostering unhealthy competition and demotivation. This paper proposes the development of a forced ranking performance evaluation system tailored for an anonymous organization, emphasizing the need for careful implementation and technological support.

Designing a Forced Ranking System involves classifying employees into performance tiers, such as top performers, average, and underperformers. The primary goal is to incentivize productivity, identify development needs, and align employee contributions with organizational strategies. Implementing such a system requires consideration of its pros and cons. The most significant advantage is that it fosters a high-performance culture by differentiating employee contributions and encouraging accountability. Conversely, the main drawbacks include potential morale issues and increased turnover if not managed properly.

Pros the Most Impactful:

1. Increased accountability and motivation among high performers.

2. Clear performance differentiation aiding in decisions about promotions, bonuses, or terminations.

3. Identification of low performers who require training or remediation.

Cons the Most Impactful:

1. Potential decrease in employee morale, leading to disengagement.

2. Risk of fostering toxic competition that damages teamwork.

3. Possible negative impact on employee loyalty and increased turnover.

Rationale for Implementation:

Implementing forced ranking should be accompanied by transparent communication, fair criteria, and support systems to mitigate adverse effects. The rationale hinges on balancing the drive for high performance with maintaining morale and engagement, which can be achieved through comprehensive training for managers and clear communication of goals and evaluation criteria.

Key Implementation Steps:

1. Train managers thoroughly on the principles, procedures, and legal considerations associated with forced ranking.

2. Develop clear performance metrics aligned with organizational goals, ensuring fairness and consistency.

3. Establish a continuous feedback process to provide employees with ongoing performance insights rather than one-time evaluations.

Technology as an Enabler:

Technology tools can significantly enhance the efficacy of the forced ranking system. First, implementing performance management software can facilitate real-time feedback, tracking, and analytics. Second, utilizing data-driven insights through dashboards can help managers make more objective decisions. Third, integrating artificial intelligence (AI) can assist in reducing bias and ensuring fairness by analyzing performance data objectively.

Summary:

A well-structured forced ranking performance evaluation system, supported by advanced technology, can improve organizational performance by motivating employees, enabling precise performance differentiation, and facilitating targeted development. Careful implementation, transparency, and continuous feedback are essential to mitigate drawbacks and foster a high-performance culture.

References

• Cappelli, P., & Tavis, A. (2016). The performance management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 58-67.
• DeNisi, A., & Williams, K. (2018). Performance appraisal and management. In R. Griffin (Ed.), Fundamentals of Human Resource Management (pp. 251-278). Cengage Learning.
• Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Harvard Business Review Analytic Services. (2017). The future of performance management in companies. Harvard Business Publishing.
• Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 146-164.
• Fletcher, C. (2001). Appraisal: Tradition and innovation. Personnel Review, 30(3), 319-334.
• Schneider, B. (2013). The psychology of organizational climate. In N. J. R. G. P. Van Velsor (Ed.), Handbook of organizational development (pp. 89-102). Sage.
• Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Sage.
• Jiang, K., & Pugh, S. D. (2018). Psychological contract breach and employee outcomes: The moderating role of human resource management practices. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 315-328.
• Armstrong, M. (2020). Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management. Kogan Page.