the problem(s) with Forced Distribution Ranking Systems

Forced Distribution Ranking Systems (FDRS) are all the rage in many Fortune 500 companies, as well as within the military. These systems are designed to give leaders a clear and transparent method to evaluate their subordinates/employees. This allows managers to rank and stack their people, providing the boss a listing of his best to worst employees. It also lets the employees know how exactly they rate when compared to their peers. This gives them valuable feedback, as the strong performers are validated and the weak performers are warned. Seems like a great program, right? RIGHT???

Speaking for the Army, evaluation reports now immediately list the person's ranking amongst his peers. Raters and senior raters directly say "Captain John is 7th out of 28" or something to that effect. This bare-bones, "tell it like it is" approach lets the evaluated know just exactly where they stand in comparison to their peers, forces the commander to truly evaluate his subordinates instead of giving everyone a pass. Furthermore, Human Resources and retention boards gain a valuable measurement on the person for their separation requirements.

So there are a number of faults with this system. Given that a number of Fortune 500 companies that previously adopted FRDS have now abandoned those same systems, I think the military needs re-evaluate its own methodology. First off, my biggest issue is with the whole "up or out" mechanism that is so pervasive within the military. Not too long ago, during the shittiest years of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, promotion was guaranteed. As long as you could successfully inhale oxygen, you were going to make Lieutenant Colonel or Master Sergeant (or whatever equivalent rank the Navy has. Thanks a lot for having a completely different rank system Navy, you've been a huge help, AS ALWAYS). Thankfully, those days are coming to an end. Now, you’ve got to earn your keep at little more. I know guys a few years ahead of me that didn’t make their second chance at a promotion and are being separated. Good! This is good! Not to sound like a dick, I certainly don’t celebrate any individual’s separation (that’s a lie - editor) but the fact that the military finally has the ability to be selective about its personnel is fantastic. There is absolutely no entitlement to promotion. Let me say that again, because it’s contrary to the experience of everyone in the military for the past decade - THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ENTITLEMENT TO PROMOTION. You do not get to pass Go and collect 200 dollars unless you’re worth of it. My problem is that the military thinks that if you aren’t fit to get promoted, you’re not fit to be in the military at all. The “up or out” methodology is highly disruptive to organizations, as it creates never ending change over, particularly amongst the leadership. To accommodate the never-ending stream of newly promoted senior officers and NCOs, turn-over rates of leadership within units is ridiculous. Imagine any major corporation that would get a new CEO every 1 to 2 years - their stock price would be in the ditch with talent fleeing like rats from a sinking ship! With a new commander ever one to two years, the ability for a strong leader to make a truly lasting change on their organization is minimal. The conveyor-belt style of personnel management employed by the military limits leaders from having lasting impact on their units. Instead, they’re forced to chase short-term wins like competing for “best unit” awards and must constantly promote their units (and by extension, their own) performance to anyone who will listen. In an Army where every unit is superb or exemplary and every Soldier is courageous and dedicated, no one actually is. The high frequency rotation of leadership hurts the long-term quality of units and the Army as a whole.

My second issue is with the lasting effects that a FRDS has on the personnel in the system. FRDS serve as a stark report card, telling the individual exactly how much they’re worth. This creates a culture that discourages risk taking and teamwork. Instead, FRDS fosters a spirit of “just get by” mentality, which only ends up harming the organization in the long run. Why try something innovative if there’s already an approved method? Especially when you know that you’ll soon be graded for your performance? Leaders are less likely to look outside the box, let alone ACT outside the box, if there is a FRDS in place. They don’t dare take the risk because the possibility of failure would result in their poor evaluation Organizations are robbed of effective teamwork by pitting peers against each other as they try to grab the top evaluation.

Leadership is not the solution. The Army certainly loves to say things are a “leadership responsibility”. Reducing suicide is a leadership responsibility. Preventing fraud, waste, and abuse is a leadership responsibility. Checking barracks rooms for contraband is a leadership responsibility. Those two words have become a catch-all phrase for any issue the military finds itself facing. The problem with this is that it relies on extremely uneven group of individuals. When it comes to trying to mitigate the negative effects of a FRDS, many peoples’ first thought is to rely on leaders. That any commander should be able to appreciate a subordinate who takes risks. Or XXXX. But this is flawed, because that commander is just a slave to the FRDS as their subordinates are. He cannot mitigate the effects of a system that he himself is beholden to. And even if that specific commander can cut through the bullshit and somehow rank their subordinates fairly, they’ll be gone within the year, replaced by God knows who. Individuals cannot correct a system, they can merely stem its harsher effects for the short time they have the power to do so. The system is down (OMG, Strong Bad reference!)

The FRDS should be abandoned by the military. We ought to follow the lead of so many Fortune 500 companies, and ditch the system outright, as it does more harm than good.