Using simulations to study the effects of performance appraisal format on workforce performance potential, the authors explore modifications of force distributional rating systems that terminate poor performers each evaluation period. Findings suggest that systems with probationary periods before termination may realize some of the gains in workforce performance potential that traditional “rank and yank” systems pose, while also having the potential to increase fairness perceptions and, in turn, reduce voluntary turnover. Despite perceptions in practice, results show that temporary use of “rank and yank” may do more harm than good in that levels of workforce performance potential may not be maintained.
Allen, D.G., & Griffeth, R.W. (2001). Test of a mediated performance-turnover relationship highlighting the moderating roles of visibility and reward contingency . Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1014-1021.
2.
Bates, S. ( 2003). Forced rankling. HR Magazine, 48, 62-68.
3.
Blume, B.D., Baldwin, T.T., & Rubin, R.S. ( 2009). Reactions to different types of forced distribution performance evaluation systems. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 77-91.
4.
Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T., & Read, W. ( 1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18, 321-352.
5.
Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M., & Levy, P.E. ( 1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633.
6.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E., & Gilliland, S.W. (2007, November). The management of organizational justice. Academy of ManagementPerspectives, 34-48.
7.
Devaro, J. ( 2006). Strategic promotion tournaments and worker performance . Strategic Management Journal, 27, 721-740.
8.
Dipboye, R.L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248-251.
9.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 129-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
11.
Gabris, G.T., & Ihrke, D.M. ( 2001). Does performance appraisal contribute to heightened levels of employee burnout? The results of one study. Public Personnel Management, 30, 157-172.
12.
Gerhart, B. ( 1999). Human resource management and firm performance: Measurement issues and policy inferences. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 4, 31-51.
13.
Ghiselli E.E., Campbell, J.P., & Zedeck, S. ( 1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
14.
Goffin, R.D., Gellatly, I.R., Paunonen, S.V., Jackson, D.N., & Meyer, J.P. ( 1996). Criterion validation of two approaches to performance appraisal: The behavior observation scale and the relative percentile method . Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 23-33.
15.
Heneman, R.L. ( 1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 39, 811-826.
16.
Jawahar, J.M., & Williams, C.R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905-925.
17.
Jelley, R.B., & Goffin, R.D. ( 2001). Can performance-feedback accuracy be improved? Effects of rater priming and rating scale format on rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 134-144.
18.
Johnson, G. ( 2004). Forced ranking: The good, the bad, and the alternative . Training, 41, 24-30.
19.
Kepes, S., Delery, J., & Gupta, N. ( 2009). Contingencies in the effects of pay range on organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 62, 497-531.
20.
Law, A.M., & Kelton, W.D. ( 2000). Simulation modeling and analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill .
21.
Lazear, E.P., & Rosen, S. ( 1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 841-864.
22.
Leventhal, G.S. ( 1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
23.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. ( 1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1, 240-246.
24.
Longenecker, C.O., Sims, H.P., & Gioia, D.A. ( 1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
25.
Maertz, C.P., & Campion, M.A. ( 2004). Profiles in quitting: Integrating process and content turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 566-582.
26.
McGregor, J. ( 2008, January). Case study: To adapt, ITT lets go of unpopular ratings. Business Week, 4068, 46.
27.
Meisler, A. ( 2003). Dead man’s curve. Workforce, 82, 44-49.
28.
Nathan, B.R., & Alexander, R.A. (1988). A comparison of criteria for test validation: A meta-analytic investigation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 517-535.
29.
Poon, J.M.L. ( 2004). Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Personnel Review, 33, 322-334.
30.
Roch, S.G., Sternburgh, A.M., & Caputo, P.M. ( 2007). Absolute vs relative performance rating formats: Implications for fairness and organizational justice. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 302-316.
31.
Ross, S.M. ( 2000). Introduction to Probability Models (7th ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. , 258.
32.
Scullen, S.E., Bergey, P.K., & Aiman-Smith, L. (2005). Forced distribution rating systems and the improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation . Personnel Psychology, 59, 1-32.
33.
Sears, D., & McDermott, D. ( 2003). The rise and fall of rank and yank. Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, 19, 6-11.
34.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2008 ). Annual voluntary turnover rate. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Articles/Pages/MetricoftheMonthAnnualVoluntaryTurnoverRate.aspx
35.
Stewart, G.L., & Nandkeolyar, A.K. (2006). Adaptation and intraindividual variation in sales outcomes: Exploring the interactive effects of personality and environmental opportunity. Personnel Psychology, 59, 307-332.
36.
Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K.B., Renard, M.K., Harrison, J.K., & Carroll, S.J. ( 1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495-523.
37.
Tziner, A., Joanis, C., & Murphy, K.R. ( 2000). A comparison of three methods of performance appraisal with regard to goal priorities, goal perception, and rate satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 25, 175-190.
38.
Whiting, H.J., & Kline, T.J.B. ( 2007). Testing a model of performance appraisal fit on attitudinal outcomes. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10, 127-148.
