I wonder how that would work in the academic world.
I grade on the curve, the bell curve.
1/3 of you will fail this term, doesnâ€™t matter what your test scores are,
we have a institutional policy on the grading curve.
Now go out there and study hard.
I once worked for "the largest gaming company in America" as a gaming (Casino) supervisor. When I had to do my staff reviews I was told that for anyone who got above a 3, on the 1 to 5 scale, I had better have some documentation of why they were "above average" in that area. I was also told that for anyone who got an over all 5 with the large pay raise and the bonus that goes with it, someone else better get a 0 and anyone that gets a 0 was to be terminated. So if I had an excellent employee, who was consistently above board on everything, and it had been consistently documented and proven, and I then reflected that in their review giving them what the company promised them for this, I would have to fire another member of my staff.
Kind of a !$%*!$ option.
I was very happy when I qualified for a staff position that paid more than my supervisory one, so I could feel clean at work again.
For once, the PHB is not at fault. It all starts with Finance. When the operating plan is developed, this is exactly the method they use to create the annual plan. If a manager dares to give increases to the entire staff, the pot he has to draw from is so small that nobody is happy with what they get. At one time HR stood for the advocate of the employee. Nowadays their sole function is to deliver the bad news and implement upper management's strategies. Sad but true.
Sounds like many companies who have set aside a certain percentage, usually very low, that will actually get raises. The rest they need to find reasons to give a low assessment at the end of the year. I pretty much knew I was going to get that and was fortunately, able to find a different job before that review killed my career.