HRM400
Critical Thinking Rubric - Module 4
Meets Expectation
Content, Research, and Analysis
9-10 Points
Requirements
Includes all of the
required
components,
including all of the
bullet point items,
as specified in the
assignment.
9-10 Points
Content
Demonstrates
strong or adequate
knowledge of
performance
management,
appraisals, and the
validity and
reliable of various
methods; correctly
represents
knowledge from
the readings and
sources.
9-10 Points
Analysis
Provides strong or
adequate thought,
insight and
analysis of
performance
management and
strategies for
resolving
workplace
problems.
9-10 Points
Sources
Cites and
integrates at least
2-3 credible
sources as
specified in
description.
Mechanics and Writing
9-10 Points
Demonstrates
Project is clearly
college-level
organized, well
Approaches
Expectation
Below Expectation
Limited Evidence
7-8 Points
Includes most of
the required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
5-6 Points
Includes some of
the required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
3-4 Points
Includes few of the
required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
7-8 Points
Some significant
but not major
errors or omissions
in demonstration
of knowledge.
5-6 Points
Major errors or
omissions in
demonstration of
knowledge.
3-4 Points
Fails to
demonstrate
knowledge of the
materials.
7-8 Points
Some significant
but not major
errors or omissions
in thought, insight
and analysis.
5-6 Points
Major errors or
omissions in
thought, insight
and analysis.
3-4 Points
Fails to
demonstrate
thought, insight
and analysis.
7-8 Points
Cites and
integrates 1-2
credible sources as
specified in
description.
5-6 Points
Cites and
integrates 1
credible source as
specified in
description.
3-4 Points
Cites and
integrates no
credible sources.
7-8 Points
Project is fairly well
organized and
5-6 Points
Project is poorly
organized; does
3-4 Points
Project is not
organized or well
HRM400
Critical Thinking Rubric - Module 4
proficiency in
organization,
grammar and
style.
written, and in
proper format as
outlined in the
assignment. Strong
sentence and
paragraph
structure; few
errors in grammar
and spelling.
written, and is in
proper format as
outlined in the
assignment.
Reasonably good
sentence and
paragraph
structure;
significant number
of errors in
grammar and
spelling.
9-10 Points
7-8 Points
Demonstrates
Project contains
Few errors in APA
proper use of
proper APA
formatting,
APA style
formatting,
according to the
according to the
CSU-Global Guide
CSU-Global Guide
to Writing and APA
to Writing and APA Requirements, with
Requirements,
no more than two
with no more than to three significant
errors.
one significant
error.
Total points possible = 60
not follow proper
paper format.
Inconsistent to
inadequate
sentence and
paragraph
development;
numerous errors in
grammar and
spelling.
written, and is not
in proper paper
format. Poor
quality work;
unacceptable in
terms of grammar
and spelling.
5-6 Points
Significant errors in
APA formatting,
according to the
CSU-Global Guide
to Writing and APA
Requirements, with
four to five
significant errors.
3-4 Points
Numerous errors in
APA formatting,
according to the
CSU-Global Guide
to Writing and APA
Requirements, with
more than five
significant errors.
228
PART IV • EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT
You Manage It! 1: Ethics/Social Responsibility
Address the following issues:
a. What is the logic of forced ranking? That is, on paper,
why might you expect forced ranking to improve the
performance level of your group?
b. The logic behind the forced-ranking approach is that
performance in a workplace is normally distributed.
Do you think this is an accurate assumption? Why or
why not?
c. If performance in a workplace is not normally distrib-
uted (for example, maybe your organization has out-
standing hiring and training programs that positively
impact performance), do you think a forced-ranking
approach would still improve the average level of per-
formance in the organization? Explain.
Share your judgments on these issues with the rest of the class.
Experiential Exercise: Team
Rank and Yank: Legitimate Performance
Improvement Tool or Ruthless
and Unethical Management?
Forced ranking is a performance appraisal system popularized by Jack
Welch when he was CEO of General Electric. It is a system that has
been given the derogatory label of “rank and yank” by its critics. The
intent of the forced-ranking system is to improve the performance level
of an operation by getting rid of the bottom 10 percent of perform-
ers and hiring replacements who will perform at a high level. Ranking
judgments can be made in a variety of ways. For example, a forced
distribution can pre-assign a set percentage of employees that must be
placed into categories such as “most effective.” “average,” and “needs
improvement.” Alternatively, a simple ranking of workers from best to
worst can be used. Top performers may be rewarded and offered promo-
tion or training. Low performers may be given a warning or terminated.
Forced ranking has been employed by a number of companies,
but some legal challenges have been made. For example, Micro-
soft successfully defended several discrimination suits challenging
its use of a forced-ranking system. Conoco used a forced-ranking
system and reached an out-of-court settlement in a discrimination
lawsuit. Ford Motor Company, Goodyear, and Sprint have all faced
lawsuits relating to forced ranking systems.
The advantage of using the forced ranking approach is to regu-
larly trim the lowest performers and thereby regularly raise the bar
for performance and create a team of top performers. Unfortunately,
the practice of forced ranking can have important disadvantages.
The use of forced ranking can be detrimental to a collaborative cul-
ture, creating instead competitiveness among workers. If the bottom
10 percent of workers are terminated each year, the forced ranking
system can also produce a lack of continuity in work teams. You
could, for example, just be learning to work well as a team when
some of them are replaced due to forced ranking. The pressure of
forced ranking may also influence workers to focus on performance
to the extent that ethical corners might be cut.
7-19. Proponents of forced ranking see the system as a means for
a quick exchange of personnel in a way that lifts the aver-
age performance level of the organization. Critics see the
approach as possibly damaging the culture and camarade-
rie in an organization and would prefer to keep people and
develop their skills.
Select representatives as members of a pro or con
forced-ranking team. Each team identifies its assump-
tions about how performance is distributed in the work-
place. They will then offer reasons why they are for or
against forced ranking. Some of the issues to be addressed
include:
a. What is the expected impact of forced ranking on per-
formance in an organization?
b. Turnover has costs associated with it (see Chapters 5
and 6). How would these costs affect your position?
c. What would be the impact of forced ranking on the
organization's culture? What about the culture without
the system?
d. Is it better to replace a poor performer or to try to
develop and improve that worker?
In a debate-style format, each team makes its presenta-
tion of position and rationale and has the opportunity
to question and rebut and rejoin the other team. The
instructor moderates this process. At the end of the
debate, the instructor leads the class in identifying the
key reasons for and against the use of forced ranking.
Is there a clear consensus in the class for or against this
system?
Critical Thinking Questions
7-14. Do you think forced ranking is a good performance man-
agement system? Why or why not?
7-15. Part of the forced-ranking label reflects the intent to force
distinctions among worker performance levels. In an
absolute-rating system, everyone could be rated “above
average.” Does this difference between the absolute- and
relative-rating approaches mean that the absolute perfor-
mance judgments are wrong? Explain.
7-16. As a manager, would you prefer to rely on an absolute
performance rating system or relative system, such as
forced ranking? Why?
7-17. Can you devise an absolute-rating system that would
guarantee differentiation among workers? Why or why not?
Team Exercise
Sources: Based on Amalfe, C.A., and Steiner, E. G. (2005). Forced ranking sys-
tems: Yesterday's legal target. New Jersey Law Journal; Hill, A. (2012, July 16).
Forced ranking is a relic of an HR tool. Financial Times; Marchetti, M. (2005).
Letting go of low performers. Sales and Marketing Management, 157, 6;
Rajeev, P. N. (2012). Impact of forced ranking evaluation of performance
on ethical choices: A study of proximal and distal mediators. International
Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 7, 37–62; Scullen, S. E., Bergey,
P. K., and Aiman-Smith, L. (2005). Forced distribution rating systems and
the improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 1–32.
7-18. As a team, address the effectiveness of the forced-ranking
approach for improving the level of performance in an
organization.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment