I'm currently trying to get my workplace to change from the forced distribution model to a "membership model" of employee evaluations. I'm currently contracting with them on talent management policies and tools, so I'm in the position to do it.
In essence, it works as you describe: rather than trying to make managers give ratings using an arbitrary metric they don't understand (which can be avoided with behaviorally-anchored rating scales, but most companies don't spend the effort to create them), you basically ask them to decide whether they're in the club or not.
There is a bit more to it than that, such as training for and having managers justify their ratings, but it's simplicity is the draw.
I like the idea of justifying ratings, but that can still be gamed, unless justifying ratings is one of their explicit performance objectives. At one of my jobs, managers had to provide more justification for the very highest and very highest ratings. So my boss told me that I deserved the highest rating, but he didn't want to provide the extra justification, so he gave me the next highest. And he confided - unprofessionally - that he knew (as we all did) that someone else in the group deserved the very lowest rating. But again, he didn't want to do the extra work, so he gave him the next to the lowest rating.
Do you have any links to references on the "membership model?" I've always felt that rating/ranking scales are unworkable, and I'm interested in other approaches.
In essence, it works as you describe: rather than trying to make managers give ratings using an arbitrary metric they don't understand (which can be avoided with behaviorally-anchored rating scales, but most companies don't spend the effort to create them), you basically ask them to decide whether they're in the club or not.
There is a bit more to it than that, such as training for and having managers justify their ratings, but it's simplicity is the draw.