These folks will get fired.
9 replies (most recent on top)
The numbers have to equal 100%. It’s 5/15/60/15/5.
We were told by our leader tech said those of us that truly exceed are NOT allowed to get exceeds anymore!
@a4+1jhxrq148 How can it be abstract if the kpi’s/goals are documented? That’s right, it can’t.
Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it invalid. Forget to fill out your timesheet, demerit. Show up late, demerit. Don’t meet a deliverable, demerit. All we have to do is learn how to work the system instead of constantly beaching about how the system changed.
@a6+1jhxrq148, your reading comprehension is absolute junk. I said "at the enterprise level", not the CIB level or any other LOB level for that matter, so I couldn't care less what CIB is and I'll have fun reporting how your "2 senior level directors" reports are also junk when we do the Enterprise level and LOB breakdown in March. But you're probably right, I'm sure your "2 senior level directors" in have better data on PM review rating distribution than the ACTUAL HR Performance Management Center of Excellence team ;)
Your numbers are absolute junk. In a perfect world you guide to these, or very close.
BUT….In my entire LOB, one of the biggest in the bank, this was the breakdown 2 separate senior level directors shared with me for year end:
Consistently Exceeds: 2%
Exceeds: 9%
Meets: 61%
Inconsistency Meets: 24%
Does not Meet: 4%
Please stop being a fear monger. The 35% is the "guided distribution" for performance reviews (15% bottom tier, 20% second to bottom, 40% meets, 20% second to top tier, 15% top tier). I can tell you with certainty because I've seen the trending for the last several years that at the enterprise level, we have not ever hit the 15% and 20% distribution. We skew much higher in the meets second to top tier (so above 40% and 20%) but less in the 15% bottom tier, 20% second to bottom tier, and 15% top tier. Additionally, your "these folks will be fired" comment is ridiculous. Most of the layoffs are still due to location strategy. Those that are not due to location strategies, but efficiency efforts, yes, they are going to look at the lowest performing individuals to let go, but like I said before, there isn't even in 35% in those lower 2 performance tiers and there is literally NO PLAN to let that many people go this year, ESPECIALLY in addition to location strategy layoffs. So you're literally one of those who come to this board just to spout off to instill fear and anxiety in people and it's disgusting.
This place is sick. Saying "they will be fired". Based on some abstract "performance review". Proves the point that this is an abusive organization.
Ok
Fire them all!