1. I believe the force-ranking appraisal system leads to rankings based on factors other than performance and does not motivate employees. Because of employee concerns and perceived unfairness within the force-ranking system companies have changed their appraisal system. According to the case study, comparing co-workers against each other. Does this motivate employees, “Following a string of discrimination lawsuits from employees who believe they were ranked and yanked based on age and not merely their performance, fewer companies are adopting the controversial management tool” (Ivancevich et al, P 139).
The force-ranking appraisal system does not motivate employees because employees are not rewarded for high performance or achieving ...view middle of the document...
The equity theory explains employees compare their efforts and rewards with those of similar work situations. This theory contends, “ Motivation is based on the assumption that individuals are motivated by a desire to be equitably treated at work”
2. The equity theory explains some employees’ negative reactions from forced rankings by changing an employees’ inputs, how much effort to invest into their current job. The attitudes or mindsets of employees’ may change, that job security is more important than a raise. Or, the employee may just decide to resign from their current job position due to annoyance or perceived inequalities (Ivancevich et al, P 126). The equity theory centers on overall pay as the outcome.
3. I would use the goal setting theory to motivate my employees, where a specific target is implemented for the employee. It is a conscious goal that influences motivation to be geared towards a desired outcome (Ivancevich et al, P 130). By being specific with the goal and having a plan of action of how to attain the goal, employees and managers can gauge and monitor progress towards the goal. Research has shown specific goals lead to higher output than vague goals such as “do your best” (Ivancevich et al, P 130). I would also have employee involvement in goal development. A field experiment conducted by skilled technicians compared three levels of subordinate participation: full, limited and none. Measures of performance and satisfaction were taken over a 12- month period. The groups with full or limited participant involvement in goal setting showed significantly more performance and satisfaction improvements than the group that did not participate in goal setting (Ivancevich et al, P 130).