Question: Research on how supervisors rate employees who work under them has found that in some firms as many as 95 percent of all ratings are "good" or "outstanding."

a. Is this necessarily evidence that supervisors are loafing to avoid the effort of making finer determinations of performance?

b. As an executive would you necessarily prefer a ranking system that required you to call no more than 20 percent of your subordinates outstanding and no less than 10 percent of them poor? (Assume that you are trying to maximize shareholder value.)

c. Do you expect that supervisors in government agencies will rate relatively more of their workers highly than supervisors in otherwise similar for-profit businesses? Why or why not?