Once you have defined your rating categories, you need to communicate them clearly and consistently to your employees. Explain the purpose and benefits of forced distribution, the criteria and standards for each category, and the consequences and rewards for different ratings. You also need to provide regular feedback and coaching to your employees throughout the performance period, so they know where they stand and how they can improve.
Measuring the impact and effectiveness of forced distribution on performance outcomes involves analyzing various metrics such as employee engagement scores, turnover rates, and performance ratings before and after implementing forced distribution. Conducting surveys to gather feedback from employees and managers can provide insights into perceived fairness and effectiveness. Additionally, tracking key performance indicators (KPIs) related to productivity, goal attainment, and overall team performance can offer quantitative data. Utilizing a combination of qualitative feedback and quantitative data analysis helps in evaluating the success and impact of forced distribution strategies accurately.
The most meaningful performance processes rely most heavily on the organic and regular feedback and collaboration leaders have with their teams, and how the observations from the prior year may best be built upon to experience the same or better performance I. The year that follows.
To implement forced distribution, you need to collect and analyze performance data from various sources, such as self-assessments, peer reviews, customer feedback, and objective metrics. You should use multiple methods and perspectives to evaluate your employees' performance, and avoid relying on subjective impressions or personal preferences. You should also compare your employees' performance with their goals, expectations, and benchmarks, and identify their strengths and weaknesses.
It’s important to lean on the objective and observed. A leadership fallacy too often observed when these feedback sources are utilized in the performance process is overutilization of a source. While leaders are regularly trained to avoid subjective impressions, peer and customer feedback may not be written with such consideration.
Based on the performance data, you need to assign ratings and rank your employees according to your predefined categories. You can use different techniques to do this, such as forced ranking, paired comparison, or top-down ranking. You should also consider the distribution curve and the quotas for each category, and adjust your ratings accordingly. You should be fair, consistent, and transparent in your rating and ranking process, and document your decisions and rationale.
When creating a performance approach that best works for your organization’s objectives, the best design includes auto-calculation of the review scores and overall ratings based on goal achievement (the what) and competency (the how).
Forced ranking allows your top performers, your steady performers and your bottom performers to be automatically assigned based on their performance scores. Paired comparison compares each person to each person by trait. This allows a review of the inputs and a calibration of scores. Top-Down ranking takes the team and ranks each employee on the team in 1-n fashion, where n=the total number on the team.
Use caution when implementing a ranking system. Forcing each leader or team to have a forced distribution or to use top-down when a team knocked team expectations out of the park can be a demotivating and detrimental to future engagement or performance.
Another caution when using comparison ranking styles that are not automatically and systematically completed, is that calibration of the data across teams may become reliant on the charisma, influence and natural advocacy of the leader participating in the calibration and ranking activity.
After you have assigned ratings and ranked your employees, you need to review and calibrate them with other managers or stakeholders. This is to ensure that your ratings are accurate, reliable, and consistent across different teams, departments, or units. You should discuss and justify your ratings and rankings, and resolve any discrepancies or disagreements. You should also check for any errors, biases, or anomalies in your ratings, and make any necessary corrections or adjustments.
When doing a performance calibration for the first time, assigning meaningful roles to the review is helpful. For example, having a facilitator ask conversation-starting questions can be helpful to allow leaders to acclimate to the process. Meaningful questions to start May include things like: •Think about your top performer. What makes them the top performer? Repeat for lowest performer. •Think about what it means to meet expectations on this item and define it for me. •What would internal or external customers define as best performance or meeting expectations? Highlight the spaces where they are aligned and where these definitions are in conflict.
The final step is to communicate and follow up on your ratings with your employees. You should provide constructive and specific feedback to your employees, and explain how their ratings were determined and what they mean for their career development and compensation. You should also acknowledge their achievements, recognize their contributions, and address their concerns. You should also set new goals, expectations, and action plans for your employees, and monitor their progress and performance.
To assess the impact of forced distribution, focus on transparent communication. After evaluating your team, offer clear feedback. Explain how ratings were decided, their implications for development and rewards, and recognize each member's contributions. This method not only clarifies expectations but also guides future objectives and growth opportunities, ensuring a balanced understanding of performance metrics and their consequences on career trajectories.
If you are using elements like runway, growth or leadership potential, consider your messaging before delivering. No one wants to hear their leader predict they have peaked in their career. Consider sharing what it takes to be seen as having high potential and what activities/opportunities may be offered to influence this score.