Hello
Anyone know how company clustered their employee on bell curve appraisal methods?especially financial company??anyone know?or anyone have some links to answer my question?
Thanks
Fachrul
HR Staff
From Indonesia, Jakarta
Anyone know how company clustered their employee on bell curve appraisal methods?especially financial company??anyone know?or anyone have some links to answer my question?
Thanks
Fachrul
HR Staff
From Indonesia, Jakarta
Ideally speaking it should be done with people across geography with same or similar roles.
However most companies club together employees in the firm irrespective of job roles.
Many things sometimes depend on several other factors. Also note that every firm is differnt just like every individual is different. They say one man's food is another man's poison. Same is true of firms as well.
I would suggest try to gather information but do not just blindly follow any one's suggestion.
Can you help me with foll questions -
What is the employee strength and are there any branches or is it a single branch firm.
From India, Mumbai
737However most companies club together employees in the firm irrespective of job roles.
Many things sometimes depend on several other factors. Also note that every firm is differnt just like every individual is different. They say one man's food is another man's poison. Same is true of firms as well.
I would suggest try to gather information but do not just blindly follow any one's suggestion.
Can you help me with foll questions -
What is the employee strength and are there any branches or is it a single branch firm.
From India, Mumbai
Your question asks "how" the clustering into a normal distribution should be done. A more important questions 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 distrubuted. 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 behavioural sciences.
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
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 make 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
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 make 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
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
From United Kingdom
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Job Work-outwork employees.docx