Hello,
Does anyone know how companies cluster their employees using the bell curve appraisal method, especially in financial companies? If so, could you please provide some insight or relevant links to answer my question?
Thank you,
Fachrul
HR Staff
From Indonesia, Jakarta
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Does anyone know how companies cluster their employees using the bell curve appraisal method, especially in financial companies? If so, could you please provide some insight or relevant links to answer my question?
Thank you,
Fachrul
HR Staff
From Indonesia, Jakarta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
742
Your question asks "how" the clustering into a normal distribution should be done. A more important question is: Should clustering into a forced normal distribution be done at all?
The first question is based on the assumed "fact" that employee performance will be normally distributed with performances varying from -3 to +3 standard deviations across the spectrum. If it is found that performance does not adhere to the normal distribution curve (NDC), then it should be corrected by applying a forced distribution.
In the case of performance ratings, it is also assumed that ratings which are not "normally" distributed are somehow the fault of the managers or supervisors who did the ratings, i.e., "easy/lenient" raters or "tough/harsh" raters (or the effect of "halo" in the ratings done). The fact of the matter is that employee performance need not (and probably is not) normally distributed. It is much more likely that the tails of the distribution are uneven with a greater bunching on the left (low end) and tail to the right extending much more than the assumed 3 standard deviations.
In summary, it is likely that a small proportion of employees contribute a lot more than the rest. Alternatively, a large proportion don't contribute much at all. It is unlikely, however, that the power distribution approach suggested here would be adopted rather than the normal distribution approach. The latter is likely to be regarded as "fairer" and a lot easier to defend because of the axiomatic status of the NDC in management and behavioral sciences.
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The first question is based on the assumed "fact" that employee performance will be normally distributed with performances varying from -3 to +3 standard deviations across the spectrum. If it is found that performance does not adhere to the normal distribution curve (NDC), then it should be corrected by applying a forced distribution.
In the case of performance ratings, it is also assumed that ratings which are not "normally" distributed are somehow the fault of the managers or supervisors who did the ratings, i.e., "easy/lenient" raters or "tough/harsh" raters (or the effect of "halo" in the ratings done). The fact of the matter is that employee performance need not (and probably is not) normally distributed. It is much more likely that the tails of the distribution are uneven with a greater bunching on the left (low end) and tail to the right extending much more than the assumed 3 standard deviations.
In summary, it is likely that a small proportion of employees contribute a lot more than the rest. Alternatively, a large proportion don't contribute much at all. It is unlikely, however, that the power distribution approach suggested here would be adopted rather than the normal distribution approach. The latter is likely to be regarded as "fairer" and a lot easier to defend because of the axiomatic status of the NDC in management and behavioral sciences.
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello fachri0286:
An employer has 20 employees managed by two managers, Manager A and Manager B. Manager A has 10 direct reports who are all exceeding their goals. Manager B has 10 direct reports, none of whom are exceeding their goals. Should all 20 employees be lumped together and then ranked 1 to 20? Should each manager's 10 direct reports be ranked 1 to 10? If yes, is that fair to all employees, both managers and the employer? If an employer hires employees so that employees' job performances fit a bell curve, then maybe a bell curve could be used. But what should we do if all employees are long-term successful employees who exceed their goals and make money for the employer? Bell curve ranking makes sense if hiring successful employees is more of a random event than a planned event, i.e., the top 10-15% exceed their goals.
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
An employer has 20 employees managed by two managers, Manager A and Manager B. Manager A has 10 direct reports who are all exceeding their goals. Manager B has 10 direct reports, none of whom are exceeding their goals. Should all 20 employees be lumped together and then ranked 1 to 20? Should each manager's 10 direct reports be ranked 1 to 10? If yes, is that fair to all employees, both managers and the employer? If an employer hires employees so that employees' job performances fit a bell curve, then maybe a bell curve could be used. But what should we do if all employees are long-term successful employees who exceed their goals and make money for the employer? Bell curve ranking makes sense if hiring successful employees is more of a random event than a planned event, i.e., the top 10-15% exceed their goals.
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Bob Gatley has clearly stated when a Bell Curve ranking makes sense. I searched the web and found a couple of good articles on the effects of Bell Curve ranking at Fighting for Time: Shifting Boundaries of Work and Social Life - Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Arne L. Kalleberg - Google Books and http://web.mit.edu/chintanv/www/Publ...on%20Final.pdf. More links at Google.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee Performance.pdf
Using Bi-directional Performance Management.doc