Critical Thinking #4

User Generated

ynatarezngg

Business Finance

Description

Assignment Choice #1: Ethics/Social Responsibility Rank and Yank: Legitimate Performance Improvement Tool or Ruthless and Unethical Management?

Read “You Manage It! 1” in Managing Human Resources (2016, p. 228). After reading the case, complete the following items:

  1. Write a summary of the case,
  2. Answer the critical thinking questions, and
  3. Elaborate on two key learnings from the case related to performance management, appraisals, and the validity and reliable of various methods. Be sure to clearly state the two key learnings and defend them in well-organized, scholarly responses.

A key learning is defined as significant knowledge gained from reading the case. You may choose to explain your key learnings by offering a real-world application, personal insight, your thoughts and opinions about what was stated, how it is handled at your company, etc.

Arrange your summary, questions, and key learnings in a well-organized, scholarly response of 2-3 pages. Support your observations and opinions with citations from 2-3 credible sources documented according to APA Requirements.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Find attached com...


Anonymous
I was struggling with this subject, and this helped me a ton!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags