It has been proven a million times over that managers begin to get strategic about who they let go and rank, not on honesty at that moment, but on giving themselves wiggle room for future cuts. Some low-performers get kept for future cuts to save current mid-tier players who will be lower in the future. Some good but difficult members get culled under the guise of a ranking. It does not work.
ML loves them
So here we are
@OP they rank you based on splitting the pool of money they have to give out. Of course, mid-year and other review stuff should support rankings.
@b9 If my boss ranks me last I will have my attorney go to EEOC on my behalf and request a right to sue letter.
No, it has not been “proven a million times”. What you wrote not only makes no sense it’s absolutely not true. Managers (good ones anyway) don’t staff for future cuts. “Keep this guy so I can cut someone else later”??
You conspiracy theorists seem to think that who to keep and who to cut is that manager’s sole decision. It’s not. It has to be fair, logical, and defensible. “Keeping this one in the bag for later” is none of those.
Stack ranking a team from best-to-worst and you are forced to not have them equal, anywhere. I could have a team of 5: 1 exceeds and 4 meets expectations. But the bank will FORCE me to pick someone as "last" and identify them for a future culling. It's brutally not about "care" at all.
Um….. what?