Performance reviews have consistently served as a crucial tool for evaluating employee productivity and contribution. However, not all methods are created equally.
One such method that has sparked significant debate is the forced distribution system. While some organisations like the ability to identify top performers and stimulate competition, others criticise it for fostering an unhealthy work environment and hindering growth.
Understanding Forced Distribution
Sometimes referred to as stacked ranking or bell-curve rating, this method of appraisal makes managers categorise their employees into distinct performance brackets. These brackets typically range from poor to excellent performers.
Theoretically, this system creates a balance, ensuring that a fixed percentage of employees fall in each category. However, these decisions are often made regardless of their actual performance.
Despite its widespread adoption by many organisations, forced distribution has faced significant backlash from many HR experts who argue that it can trigger resentment, dampen morale, and lead to unhealthy competition.
The Problems With Forced Distribution
1. Unfair Comparisons and Negative Consequences
One of the fundamental flaws is the assumption that a team will always consist of a fixed number of high, average, and low performers. In reality, this is not always the case.
For instance, a team could predominantly consist of average performers who are still making significant contributions. Alternatively, there could be a very small team made up of high-performing individuals who still need to be distributed into low ranks.
2. Inconsistent and Biased Evaluations
Forced distribution often relies on a manager’s subjective opinion, leading to evaluations that may not accurately reflect an employee’s performance throughout the year. Biases, preferences, or prejudices can influence these ranking decisions, penalising employees for factors beyond their control.
3. Lack of Development and Growth Opportunities
The focus of this method is identifying and rewarding the top performers, often at the expense of the rest of the employees. This can create a demotivating environment where employees feel undervalued and stuck in their current roles.
Employees are not provided with meaningful feedback or opportunities to improve their performance and skills.
The Consequences
Forced distribution can distort team dynamics and hamper performance. It can lead to increased office politics and negative relationships as employees try to ensure that others appear less favourable.
Passive Employees
It can also result in unambitious behaviours where employees aim to perform just a notch above their peers, rather than striving for excellence.
Similarly, forced distribution discourages risk-taking, which is often necessary for innovation and growth. The fear of falling into the ‘poor’ performance category can deter employees from exploring new ideas, stunting creativity and the potential for breakthroughs.
Negativity Bias
This approach also amplifies negativity bias—our tendency to attach more significance to negative events than positive ones. In the context of forced distribution, this means that employees are more driven to avoid falling into the ‘poor’ performance category than they are to strive for the ‘excellent’ rating.
Low Employee Morale
Apart from the tangible negative impacts on team performance, forced distribution can significantly affect employee morale. Employees who consistently perform well but do not make it into the top category may feel resentful. This can lead to decreased job satisfaction, reduced motivation, and an increased likelihood of turnover.
High Turnover
Forced distribution can lead to a decline in talent within a company. The pressure to maintain a top rating could result in hiring less productive employees, diluting the overall talent pool.
Burnouts
The stress induced by this approach to performance review can increase the risk of burnout among employees. The fear of underperformance and the constant pressure to outperform peers can lead to physical and emotional exhaustion, further exacerbating the negative impacts on morale and productivity.
What Should We Do Instead?
Given the inherent flaws in the forced distribution system, it is imperative for companies to explore alternatives that provide a more balanced, fair, and growth-oriented approach to performance evaluation.
One such alternative is a system that emphasises continuous feedback and coaching. This approach involves regular discussions between managers and employees, setting goals, monitoring performance, and providing support and guidance throughout the year.
This allows for an individualised evaluation process, taking into account the unique strengths and challenges of each employee. It also fosters a culture of growth and development, leading to a more engaged and motivated workforce.