Forced ranking, also called stack ranking or rank and yank, requires managers to rank employees against one another rather than against a fixed rating scale, typically sorting the results into predetermined tiers.

Where it came from, and how it relates to the bell curve

The practice is most associated with Jack Welch’s “vitality curve” at GE in the 1980s: a 20-70-10 model sorting the top 20% of performers as the most productive, the middle 70% as adequate, and the bottom 10% flagged for removal. Forced ranking is the process, ranking people against each other; the resulting distribution shape, top 20/middle 70/bottom 10 or similar, is what’s usually called the bell curve. Most sources treat the two terms as close companions, since a forced-ranking exercise is almost always mapped onto some kind of fixed distribution. Adoption of this style of forced distribution has fallen sharply from its peak in the early 2000s, though published figures on exactly how many companies still use it are inconsistent enough that none is worth quoting as precise.

Frequently asked questions

Is forced ranking the same as bell curve rating?

They’re companion mechanisms rather than identical. Forced ranking is the ranking process; bell curve is the resulting distribution shape.

Why did so many companies move away from forced ranking?

It was widely criticized for damaging collaboration, since colleagues effectively compete against each other for a fixed number of good ratings rather than being judged against an absolute standard.

Does forced ranking still exist anywhere?

In some form at some organizations, though it’s become far less common as a stated, formal policy than it was two decades ago.

See the related 9-box grid, a different way of plotting relative employee standing.