General Electric, after several iterations, settled on four competencies against which all employees subject to their forced ranking system are evaluated. GE calls these four competencies the "4 E's": High energy level, ability to energize others around common goals, the edge to make tough yes/no decisions, and ability to consistently execute and deliver on promises. Obviously none of them is amenable to a numerical, quantitative counting process to determine whether Sam is better than Mary. Should they then not be used?

Rita Risser replies:

All four of these factors could be interpreted in a subjective or even biased way. For example, a manager might assume that an older person has less energy than a younger one, and thereby rate based on a discriminatory stereotype. The factors also can be applied in stupid ways. I used to work at a place that would rate people highly on "energy" if they put in 60 hours at the office, even if 45 of those hours were spent goofing off.

However, as I read these factors, they also could be interpreted fairly and somewhat quantitatively. For example, "high energy level" could be expressed as number of projects completed, amount of code written, ability and willingness to work necessary overtime, etc.

"Edge" to make tough decisions should be documented with the actual decisions the person was required to make, and the results. For example, I am involved in a volunteer group that is led by someone who can make an unpopular decision, and even announce it, but as soon as she gets any resistance, she backs down. If I was her manager, I would document that.

Like all ranking systems, GE's can be done well or poorly, depending upon how well the managers are trained in applying the factors. On its face, this system doesn't look illegal, but how it is implemented can be.