All i need to change the formula so the solution looks not the same.
The type of evaluation system used in this case is the ranking method. The ranking method of the evaluation process is centered around the performance of employees. Employees working for anorganization that uses the ranking method are put against each other (Boxall and Purcell, 2016).
After the ranking, the highest performing employees are rewarded for their performance, lower-performing employees are rewarded in relatively lower scales. In contrast, lower- performing employeesare relieved of their duties or not rewarded at all (Boxall and Purcell, 2016).
In the evaluation, if a group has ten employees, the performance of the 1st employee is compared with the performance of the 10th, followed by a comparison of the 2nd employee and the 10th employee all through until all the employees have been compared to the one focal employee in question (Boxall and Purcell, 2016).
One of the significant effects that the Rank and yank effect has on managers is guilt. A manager is likely to suffer from guilt owing to the number of employees who lose their jobs due to the manager’s low recommendations. In case of prolonged guilt, the manager may be depressed if they are unable to get over the thought of an employee has lost their job due to the recommendations they have given and theresultant effects on the employees’ family (Hook and Jenkins, 2019).
According to Hook and Jenkins (2019), one of the most notable effects of guilt is insomnia. Lack of sleep may directly lead to a reduction in the productivity of the managers. Hook and Jenkins, (2019), furtherstate that one of the main side-effects of insomnia is a reduction in the psychomotor capabilities and consolidation of memory.
Additionally, guilt may also lead to a loss of appetite, and resultantly cause the mangers to underperformin their daily duties. Hook and Jenkins (2019), state that sugar is an important element in people and has a direct impact on the ability of a person to perform optimally and make sound decisions. Consequently, the managers are likely to make poor decisions that may affect the organization adversely.
The system does not reward employees based on the value they contribute to the organization as a whole but rather on the numbers they bring to the organization. The employees are more inclined towardsclosing the sale and adding the numbers than deliver the expected experience through the beliefs of theorganizations.
Moreover, the rank and yank system can have devastating effects on the employees’ morale. According to Ivancevich and Konopaske, (2013), one of the primary goals of performance appraisals is to reward employees and motivate them to perform better leading to higher productivity and profit margins for the company as a whole. However, since the rank and yank system only recognizeâ€™s limited sections ofemployees and disregards the lowest, the lowest-performing employee is likely to be discouraged as they feel that their efforts are not appreciated. Thus, employees might lack morale to do more and achieve better results and, in worst-case scenarios, might choose to leave the organization.
For a better performance appraisal system, the organization should embrace modern performanceappraisal methods such as the 360-degree assessment method. In this method, the employee being assessed receives meaningful feedback from fellow employees on matters related to their work ethic. The evaluation process is aimed at assessing various social, networking, teamwork, and productivity skills (Ivancevich and Konopaske, 2013).
The performance of the employees is further analysed and meaningful conclusions made of the outcome.If the employee is found to be performing well, he or she is rewarded, and if their performance is notoptimal, they are warned and taken through counselling. The
quality of their performance can be arrived at based on the feedback of employees within the same team (Ivancevich and Konopaske, 2013).
Additionally, the 360-degree approach also enables managers to identify existing gaps in the competitiveness of the workforce. The employees are then selected and scheduled for training and development programs, which will further better their performance in their respective roles and responsibilities at work (Ivancevich and Konopaske, 2013).
Furthermore, the 360-degree feedback, also known as the multi-rater system, is based on various sources as opposed to feedback from one manager. Thus, the system eradicates erroneous data, which might result from having a single source of data for the analyses. Consequently, the human resource office is better positioned to make informed decisions over the employees (Ivancevich and Konopaske, 2013).