Forums
Promotion Policy
Work Views
Promotion Policy
For every news story, thereÂ’s a workforce-management angle. Discuss them here, or read Work Views for more opinions.
In my org. the Managment has decided to cap the number of promotions allowed in each grade by making a POLICY that for a given number of staff under the supervision of any Dept. Head, only 10% will be
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId59
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId59Discussion:DiscussionId20507
Forums » Topic Forums » Work Views » Promotion Policy
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 10/2/2001 6:14 PM EDT
|
Posts: 2
First: 10/2/2001 Last: 10/2/2001 |
In my org. the Managment has decided to cap the number of promotions allowed in each grade by making a POLICY that for a given number of staff under the supervision of any Dept. Head, only 10% will be rated 'A', 20% be rated 'B' 60% rated 'C' and 10% as 'D'. It means even if there are more performers who have achieved thier assigned targets, they still can not be promoted due to this POLCIY. What can I do? The org. is very large having 17,500 or more staff. We have a "Goal Setting" peformance appraisal system in our organization. |
|
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 10/18/2001 5:37 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 495
First: 9/30/2000 Last: 8/19/2011 |
How absurd! How can you predetermine how people can be rated? What if one department has no top performers that would be identified for promotion? On the other hand, what if a department was so lucky as to have five of eight people with potential? You can't predetermine where people will "fit". To know that they will be classified by this structure is unbelievable in today's society.
This "number game" will kill morale in your organization. What was the reason for implementing this policy? How responsible and reliable are your department heads? What previous problems have you had with promotional initiatives? I've never heard of this type of setup. |
|
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 2/27/2002 7:06 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 9
First: 7/2/1999 Last: 3/26/2003 |
It's called a "Forced Ranking" and is quite common. It assists a company in salary planning and controlling skyrocketing costs. While I personally don't like the policy from an ER perspective, I can see the advantages from a Financial or even Span of Control point of view. I always advise against it, but as I mentioned, it's quite a common practice. |
|
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 2/27/2002 10:47 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 378
First: 1/8/2002 Last: 9/14/2011 |
I fully concur with Spencers comments. From my observations, this arrangement is more prevalent among larger companies and, as the previous poster notes, it is a financially-dominated situation. To answer the poster's question of what he can do, there isn't a lot to say. Go through your HR chain of command and convince management that this does not serve your company's best long-term interests. It has an adverse affect on the bottom line. Look at statistics like turnover and employee satisfaction. They would surely suffer as a result of this type of climate.
If that doesn't work and you aren't prepared to work in this climate, I would suggest looking for another job. |
|
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 3/1/2002 5:56 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 27
First: 3/30/2001 Last: 2/24/2011 |
Although I think this message was posted some time ago, I think it is interesting and forces me to respond. We had this in our previous company and it was as per the gradation curve and we found it very effective for business reasons as well as to prevent managers trying to promote almost every employee working under them. Infact under the gradation curve, we could have a realistic picture of the real star performers within the company and no I do not think this would demoralize the emps, infact it prevents emps from taking the promotions for granted just on the length of their tenure with the company.
|
|
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 3/3/2002 3:09 PM EST
|
|
Posts: 43
First: 11/26/2001 Last: 1/1/2004 |
We too have a forced rating system at our organisation which has a large number of employees. The policy on promotion we have states clearly that past perormance does not lead to a promotion automatically. We look at consistent past performance to qualify for promotion. Those identified as promotable attend and assessment and development centre which assesses potential for higher responsibility including new and different assignments. The promotion is also based on internal vacancies identified in advance. It has worked well so far for us. |
|
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 3/4/2002 3:01 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 276
First: 1/29/2002 Last: 4/30/2003 |
However, isn't this a disadvantage to the employee when a rating is lower than it really should be just because the manager has already met his "excellent" quota?
If this employee were to be considered for a promotion later down the road, would it be obvious that the forced ranking was indeed forced and did not represent the employee as favorably as it otherwise would have? |
|
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 3/4/2002 3:13 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 977
First: 12/25/2001 Last: 10/3/2010 |
I think in the 1950s one department of Bell Labs had six employees. If the manager had force ranked the six employees and then rewarded the top two and punished the bottom two while ignoring the middle two, he would have been forced to ignore two Nobel Prize winners and punish one other Nobel Prize winner plus one soon-to-be Nobel Prize winner.
Forced rankings are not too helpful if we have all good employees. Therefore, forced ranking is an admission that management made numerous hiring and/or promotion mistakes in the past and the employees will be made to suffer for those mistakes. |
|
|
Promotion Policy
posted at 3/4/2002 6:58 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 378
First: 1/8/2002 Last: 9/14/2011 |
I agree with Bob. In my opinion, forced ranking may meet certain "needs" of management, but it creates more problems than what it solves. It usually hinders teamwork and if the organization has succeeded in hiring many talented workers, it penalizes productive people. Retention is not enhanced, nor does it breed loyalty. It makes management's job easier in the short term, but creates other problems in the long term.
Forced ranking is a system that provides negative incentive to the majority. I think it's better to keep things on a positive note. Not everyone can get promoted with superior performance, but that's why we have other rewards systems in place. |
Forums » Topic Forums » Work Views » Promotion Policy
