Back in the day when we were ranked numerically 1-5, a meets rating of 3 was always looked at negatively and for most employees considered a bad rating. Well after years of beating us within an inch of our lives, they have made us all feel extremely grateful to get a meets on our ratings.
Don't get too comfortable though, now that we are nearly done with mid year we'll get started with year end in a couple months.
@rm, Are there any MBAs at Wells? Could have fooled me.
Stacked ranking is an organizational performance appraisal method used by the fifth column masquarading as C-suite in order to destroy company culture and business as a going concern. Business case studies that provide ample evidence abound in any half- decent MBA program.
@b6 - how can this be ? We only hire the best, cannot be true that under performers exist here !
I never knew a 3 was bad. Now, seeing that everybody was getting 4 and 5 is insane. Knowing that justifies why Charlie changed things. There is no way everyone deserved the highest rating.
There were times I was rated a 4 but mostly I was a 3. I have consistently been a top performer on my time and received multiple raises sometimes even got two raises instead of just one. Whenever my manager was able to get me more they did. Oftentimes my performance carried the team. But, I would rather get the money than a high rating. I'm wondering if handing out 4s and 5s was used to sooth folks while cheating them in other ways.
Oh, completely agree. If there is a way to combine the pluses from both systems.
Layoffs are also due to that old structure because it was easy street and nobody was fired. Every department in the bank was bloated with HC.
Layoff should = efficiency, not performance. It is not the employees fault if the work dried up. The old mantra of working to put yourself out of a job meant successful performance.
If performance is the actual problem , then they should have to document and manage to that. Realize it is possible to have a team of high performers. Use low performance for anyone who is doing poorly at their job. Do not create toxicity among teams and you will get more high performing teams. Then the company will do well because everyone is acting ethically.
While I am at it, you shouldn’t have to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to promote someone. That is just d-mb.
And don’t get me started on the pay overlap so that no one can get an increase when promoted if you are within the lowest range.
every manager perceives meets differently as well. The only change now is that they pretend to calibrate across managers but that doesn't begin to fix things. If you ask me they should take perceptions out of it and give managers a form to fill out which determines the rating. heck, you could even use AI to determine based on written reviews. They should also take managers out of the comp decisions and base in on inputted variables.
@b1+1k10qwywb what they have implemented doesn’t fix any of that. True- the old performance evaluations were subjective. Subjective is better than doctored to meet the corporate motive.
The old system was flawed too because each manager perceives the 1-5 scores differently. In my old org, the only way to get a 5 was if you were the second coming. In other orgs, they were handed out like candy. If some of those pa--y groups didn't throw 5s around like 3s, maybe the system didn't need changing. It's evident here because it seems nobody got a 3 in the old system. How's that possible?
I dont have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.
This is so d-mb for a 2% raise and a “just be thankful you have a job”.
It’s a very subjective and flawed system. I was hitting all key metrics and received an Inconsistently Meets rating at mid year. Finished the year strong but still not enough to climb out of the inconsistency meets rating by year end. Opportunities addressed in review were all calling me out on irrelevant activities that didn’t matter to the bottom line KPIs. Nothing I could dispute but still unfair because my counterpart was NOT hitting their targets and still got a meets rating all year.
I've never been asked to rate someone below meets, unless they have a corrective action. That's just my group though. There's been none of this 'we need one more IM in your group' stuff, to meet the bell curve or whatever.
All done to get people to quit when receiving a 2 or 1 rating. Wrong reason to rate employees. Stack ranking is always a d-mb idea. Why would you help a peer when that action is not rewarded and could put you behind that peer. My last Southeast Asian manager valued time in office and time sitting on conference calls as the mark of a good employee. Results did not matter to him. When I was told to put something negative in one of my teams review so we could get one more 2 rating I knew I was done with WF.