Forced distribution: Is it right for you?

Human Resource Development Quarterly

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 339-345

  Guralnik, Orna ^a,b   Rozmarin, Eyal ^a   So, Anne ^a  

^a LUCID   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85018129524     PISSN: 10448004     EISSN: 15321096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1107     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Boyle, M. (2001, May). Performance reviews: Perilous curves ahead. Fortune, pp. 187-188.
2. Case study: Bristol-Myers Squibb unbundles performance evaluation, emphasizes separate responsibilities within process. (2002, January 28). Workforce Strategies, pp. WS-1-3.
3. Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins.
4. Guralnik, O., & Wardi, L. A. (2002). Forced distribution: A controversy. LUCID White Papers.
5. HayGroup. (2002). Achieving outstanding performance through a “culture of dialogue.” Working paper.
6. Hewitt Associates. (2000, March). Performance management and multi-rater feedback processes. Washington, DC: Corporate Leadership Council, p. 4.
7. Kunde, D. (1999). Linking salary to worker tanking rankles some. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
8. Loren, G. (2001, October 1). The controversial practice of FD. Harvard Management Update.
9. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.