Ex managers, what is the deal with ranking that everything looks like an undercover f.. operations and managers “can’t” share details?
Why are employees not allowed to observe how someone else sells our 1 yr of work in 2.5 minutes to people that does not know we exist?
The real problem is ethics. And EM expects loyalty. Oxymoron.
Given our top management’s mad desire to get rid of as many people in North America, making the ranking meetings proceedings public would be a formidable we---n to achieve the management’s goals.
Watching all the dirty horse-trading, blatant bias and how our hard-work contributions are treated like useless garbage would certainly result in a massive spike in resignations.
We all know the process is deeply corrupt, but seeing up close really is nauseating.
@1suz+1fqABwgo
No, I don’t know who you are and I can only judge from what you write. If you’re a regular worker bee you have my apologies, but then why do you suggest that somehow the ranking process is based on reasonable evaluation of accomplishments and skills? If you’re a regular worker you should know that’s not so case, so you’re completely deluded. In fact, if you would see the ranking meeting proceedings you would be so disgusted you would want to quit immediately.
No way to make a good case for you here.
Here is what I would love to see. Give each employee a random number. Each employee writes their own 2 min speech. It never goes to the manager. All speeches are collected annomously. Each ranking member reviews the speeches and forms their own rank list (no meetings, this is done in isolation). Rank lists are put together based on a point system (50 people in a rank group, #1 person on list gets 50 points). Points all added up and finalized list created. Supervisors / managers forbidden from discussing with each other to prevent figuring out who is who (I’d make this bite too, I’m talking termination penalty if found out). No politics, no pets, no favors under that system. Let the best he/she/pick your pronoun win.
It is all about Control.
Exxon Managers seem to want full control over every aspect of careers to ensure the sponsored ones flourish with artificially highest rankings and best job opportunities to help support those artificial rankings.
EXxon immediately stopped Job Postings by Mobil affiliates at the merger.
EXxon Managers freaked out at the thought of publishing a list of open jobs every two weeks and letting employees express interest in the ones they wanted.
Exxon Managers also freaked out at the idea of eliminating forced ranking like the system Mobil used.
Why is everything so secret in the company? Ranking, job assignments, salary, etc. It’s command and control baby. XOM style.
@1fru+1fqABwgo respectfully, you don't know me and are making wild assumptions. i hope they make you feel better.
I'm a specialist - can't say much more.
I've had 2 out of 8 supervisors during my career that could explain what I do and my specialty's value to the company. Three couldn't spell 'spectroscope' properly.
Hence, the leather knee patches on my workpants.
(Zoom does not deliver at that level, btw.)
@ofu+1fqABwgo
You are really full of it:
“ you have accomplishments, list them in your PDS. You have skills, list them in your PDS”.
Sure, at EM your ranking hinges on your accomplishments, right? And of course if you have direct reports your “accomplishments” are automatically higher than an individual contributor.
And your skills are so well valued, to the point that to get high grades for your skills you have to be a manager, because high grades are by definition reserved for them.
So you have high accomplishments and high skills because you’re a manager and you deserve to be a manager because you have high accomplishments and skills.
Of course people like you don’t need to see what happens in a ranking meeting, because you are guaranteed to be on top no matter what.
No secret. There is a forced distribution. Supervisors have two minutes to talk about you. Group in the room decides where you end up. Supervisor doesn’t have final say where you rank. Each supervisor has to meet the distribution with their team typically. Even people who end up in the bottom are good workers.
@ius+1fqABwgo It is a zero sum game. If someone goes up someone else has to go down.
@1kyb+1fqABwgo They would say you can’t do that you have to meet the distribution.
All supervisors in an assessment meeting should put every last person into the NSI bucket. What would HR do??
The secret of these circle-jerk exercises is greed.
and some legal review.
its secret because how else can you explain rank groups that are across different job functions. How does one quantify if a controller controlled their reports better than a product manager managed their product?
It is kept secret because the system is rigged to favor the chosen ones.
Yes I have seen the ranking of a person of color moved upward by HR after conclusion of the ranking but before publishing.
A person in bottom quintile can have exact same Accomplishments as a top quintile and their rankings not move. Managers make excuse that the bottom guy did not make “extra effort “ so leave him in bottom. For top guy, Management says “ we did not provide an adequate challenge” so leave him at top.
Thought exercise. I often see people make comments about how “good” supervisors fight for their people. What if all the supervisors in the rank session are good and “fight” for their people. What then? Distribution must be met. Don’t blame your supervisor for a cr---y system. No supervisor is allowed to put all their people in outstanding and force other supervisors to PIP their entire team. Problem is the system not the supervisors.
You only get 2 minutes not 2.5
Thats what happened when the managers are just following process..good managers will fight back against the system that demotivated most of their employees....at the end, the managers just want to cover their a**....
Outdated cr---y process which is a just a formality for the lawyers sake and subjective enough to give senior management and HR autocratic control. Managers and supervisors are puppets in the process
@qbr+1fqABwgo you just described Annandale, we have a dumpster fire 🔥 here! if your RE beware, management is corrupt
As an employee, you provide input via your PDS. That's it. you have accomplishments, list them in your PDS. You have skills, list them in your PDS. and then you get the outcome of the session via feedback from your supervisors. I am a curious person but i would not want to know what exactly is said in those sessions because A- it makes no sense without hearing everyone else's blurb (because it's relative performance) B - I can't hear anyone else's blurb because that's a privacy issue C - I would not want to have the behavior of someone else's supervisor or manager color my perception of them. Their work with me should be what informs my opinion on them, not if their manager oversold them or threw them under the bus.
You say people of color get preferential treatment…. SMH Yeah right!!!!