How to measure the proportion of performance mandatory distribution

Principle. The proportion of people greater than 100% does not exceed 20% of the total

The proportion of persons less than 80% shall not be less than 20% of the total

The rest totals 80%.

Maybe it's a bit off-topic, but I still hope to provide some reference for the subject from another angle.

1. About indicators. The use of non-quantitative indicators is an irrational but very common phenomenon in performance management. There are no more than two types of indicators for general enterprise assessment, performance and behavior.

And both of these categories can actually be quantified, it just depends on how to operate. The use of non-quantitative indicators to implement the assessment will lead to the amplification of the influence of subjective factors in the assessment process, which makes the assessment results easy to disagree and affect the authority of the assessment work. It brings additional resistance to the smooth implementation of the assessment.

Therefore, it is recommended to reduce the number of behavioral indicators and quantify all indicators. After all, there are not many indicators to be assessed. The assessment lies in the rationality and operability of the indicators, not in the number of assessment indicators.

2. On the mandatory distribution of performance. For this, I personally recommend considering two aspects:

1) Mandatory distribution of performance, which may be suspected of violating the law. Some enterprises implement the elimination of the end, which is also a forced distribution. However, the termination of the labor contract by eliminating the last position cannot be supported by law, and once a labor dispute arises, the possibility of the enterprise losing the lawsuit is very high.

2) The use of performance forced distribution, which deviates from the original intention of performance management. The original intention of performance management is to stimulate the enthusiasm of employees to improve job performance. And the mandatory distribution of performance, because no matter how good the team is, there is also the one with the lowest performance, and this lowest person, maybe his performance is also fully in line with the requirements, and may even be better.

So for such employees, the performance appraisal brings completely negative incentives, and such negative incentives, because of the existence of mandatory distribution, are inevitable, just which employee is in turn. As a result, instead of motivating, it makes it possible for employees to focus on how not to be at the bottom rather than trying to make the team perform better.

Therefore, it is recommended that you adjust the performance model to conform to the positive incentive principle of performance, so as to truly stimulate the enthusiasm of employees and implement performance management.

Three gold lubricants for you. Hope it helps, and I hope I can.

There is a lot of opinion among the employees of the department, indicating that the mandatory distribution method may not be applicable to the department or the company, and the premise that it is used is that the work performance of employees is not much, and the good, medium and poor are distributed in a normal proportion, and the good and bad are relatively small.

According to the principle of normal distribution, that is, the distribution law commonly known as "the middle is large, the two answers are small", the evaluation grade and the percentage of each grade in the total number are predetermined, and then according to the degree of performance of the assessee, it will be included in a certain level. For example, the ratio of good to medium is required to be 1:4

4:1, a department of 30 people is good to poor.

Topic background. When doing the performance appraisal plan to refer to filial piety, under normal circumstances, we will definitely split the score into several levels (ABCDE), and then mark each grade with a limit on the number of people and linked to the salary, so as to artificially control the normal distribution of performance appraisal, so that there are rewards and punishments, so that on the surface, the score distribution of performance appraisal is reasonable and the operation is normal.

We may also often hear the line manager complain that the performance of the employees is very good, why do some employees have to be deducted if they are not qualified? Can't they all pass? In order to cope with the forced distribution, line managers will come up with various tricks, such as taking turns to sit on the bank.

In the end, HR looks like a harmonious performance appraisal on the surface, but in fact the performance appraisal is increasingly deviating from its ultimate goal.

Viviangemini: Why should performance appraisal scores be normally distributed? Does the implementation of performance appraisal necessarily require mandatory distribution?

Wen Yun: 1. The normal distribution is to distinguish between employees with excellent performance and poor performance, according to the law of 80 20 management, 20% of outstanding employees create 80% of the company's performance.

2. The implementation of performance appraisal does not necessarily have to implement the mandatory distribution method. For enterprises that have just begun to implement performance appraisal or small and medium-sized enterprises whose management is not yet standardized, it is difficult to carry out performance appraisal in a quantitative and objective manner, and the adoption of the mandatory distribution method will be counterproductive. For mature large enterprises, mandatory distribution can be implemented when the information system is relatively complete.

If the forced distribution method is not implemented, the method of performance appraisal coefficient can be introduced. The individual performance is linked to the performance of the department, and the corresponding adjustment coefficient is introduced for the assessment results between different departments.

langshi0716：

1. The reason for the normal distribution of performance appraisal is because of the fear that the performance results are too concentrated, which leads to helpless choices. While the normal distribution does enable the differentiation of performance outcomes, is this distinction a manifestation of true performance outcomes? Unknown.

The most important thing in the assessment is the setting of indicators, whether it can be quantitatively measured and objectively evaluated. The coercive distribution is often misleading to focus on the endless war of hierarchy rather than on the actual performance improvement behavior. Article Keywords:

performance appraisal ;

The "Compulsory Allocation Method" in Performance AppraisalAll organizations that implement performance appraisal use the results of performance appraisal as the basis for adjusting remuneration and making promotion decisions, so the reasonable distribution of performance appraisal results is more important. Many organizations want the results of performance reviews to be normally distributed, or to be reasonably distanced. However, in the actual assessment, the results are often disappointing, either densely distributed in the high-level area or concentrated in the middle area, forming a common "trend effect" in the evaluation.

The compulsory allocation method has become a common method for many organizations to achieve a reasonable distribution of performance appraisal results. The core idea of the compulsory allocation method is to make the assessment results meet the preset grade allocation through the revision and adjustment of the assessment results. This method is not easily accepted by some examiners because they give a pro-rata mark, not a preliminary result.

In their opinion, test scores after forced assignments are distorted.

For other examiners, it is difficult to classify subordinates according to their ranks, especially when he knows that those with lower ranks are likely to have their salaries lowered or demoted or even eliminated. It is especially difficult for managers with few subordinates to implement the compulsory allocation method. Some supervisors complained when they were asked to implement performance appraisals according to the mandatory assignment method

I only have two subordinates, which really makes me feel like it's hard to meet the normal assignment required by the HR department. According to the principle of normal distribution, which is commonly known as the distribution law of "large in the middle and small at the end", the evaluation grade and the percentage of each grade in the total score are predetermined, and then they are included in one of the grades according to their performance.

Generally, we are divided into three levels, which is suitable for the situation that there are more candidates, and it is also a post-event adjustment of the performance appraisal results. The main reason is that at this stage, our performance appraisal results do not meet our expectations, and the appraisal results are concentrated in a certain score range, which makes it difficult to distinguish the advantages and disadvantages of performance, but we have to use mandatory allocation. It also exposes the failure of China's performance appraisal system.

In fact, as long as it is an effective performance appraisal system, it should conform to our normal distribution. Why performance appraisal results can't be normally distributed?

Yes. Because only in this way is it fair and just, which can make employees work harder and have a certain positive effect.

Of course, there is no need, in some small enterprises, or those companies that have just been established, because the management is not very standardized, the use of this method will have the opposite effect, and secondly, we must fully believe in the direct superior of the person being assessed, so that the superior can have enough power to manage the performance of subordinates, so that it can be relatively fair and objective, and the performance appraisal can only play an auxiliary role, can not be regarded as a standard.

Not necessarily. If a mandatory distribution is used in performance appraisals, it will make the internal competition particularly fierce, which will create a lot of pressure on employees.

1. Under normal circumstances, the assessment calculation method of quantitative assessment is:

Actual Completion Value: Target Value*100*Weight;

For example, the completion rate of the order plan, the target value is 99%, the actual completion is 98%, and the weight is 30% assessment score = 98% 99% * 100 * 30% = points);

The assessment deducts points, and the gap between the assessment scores is very small by adopting this method;

2. The following methods can be adopted in quantitative assessment to increase the gap in assessment scores.

Minimum target value, score 0 points;

Minimum target value, score = (actual value - minimum target value) (target value - minimum target value) * 40 + 60

For example, the order plan completion rate, the target value is 99%, the minimum target value, the actual completion is 98%, and the weight is 30%.

Assessment score = ((98% points).

8 points will be deducted from the assessment, and this method can widen the gap in assessment scores;