A new hope for rank and yank

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 385-396

  Mulligan, Jamie R ^a   Bull Schaefer, Rebecca A ^b  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GONZAGA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

forced distribution rating system; Monte Carlo simulation; performance appraisal; rank and yank

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053065060     PISSN: 15480518     EISSN: 19397089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1548051811405206     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. 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 Management Perspectives, 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.