The team supporting the motion raised several issues. Among the issues raised, include the fact that forced rankings leads to increased productivity, and it enhances performance among the employees. The speaker also noted that forced ranking ensures that the top performer does not carry the heavy load for the group. Another point raised was that forced ranking acts as a motivator because it increases the positive and confident feeling among the high achievers. The second speaker who supported the motion noted that forced ranking enables the employees to know their status within the company, by giving feedback on performance. The speaker also noted the importance of forced ranking in eliminating weak performers in the organization. The speaker also raised the issue of rewards in form of rewarding top performers, and providing opportunities for the weak performers to improve.
The speakers who opposed the motion cited the fact that forced rankings encourages self-interest. The speaker also observed that forced ranking leads to discrimination, and this has increased the number of lawsuits that the company faces. The speaker observed how the rankings could lead to abuse. The second speaker who opposed the motion claimed how forced ranking provides a channel for employers to fire employees. The speaker noted that there are better alternatives to forced ranking. The speaker also noted how forced rankings makes the managers focus on quotas rather than merits when rewarding performance. The second speaker should have done more to explain his points. Since he has had negative experience of forced rankings, he should have provided more information on how this affected him.
The team supporting the motion showed strong arguments to support their claims. They were clear in their reasoning, and they included diverse arguments and reasoning. This showed the extent at which the speakers had researched the information. The speakers covered a different range of topics and ideas. Perhaps the main limitation is that the second speaker supporting the motion failed to invalidate the points raised by the first speaker opposing the motion. The speaker could have pointed out how forced ranking can sometimes be a way for employees to use teamwork to their advantage, rather than it being a way of enhancing self-interests. In addition, the speaker could have pointed out the weakness of the argument claiming that forced ranking leads to managers abusing the employees.
The speakers opposing the motion were not willing to divulge more information to back their claims. They did not make their points clear, and this weakened their arguments. The second speaker should have provided other alternatives, which are better than forced rankings. The speaker should also have included information detailing why companies are no longer using forced rankings. The speakers could have made advantage of the negative emotional consequences that employees show because of forced rankings. The speakers opposing the motion were not as strong as their opponents were. They failed to capitalize on the points they had, as this should have made their arguments stronger. The group supporting the motion had strong and valid points, and I think that they won the debate.