Is it true that new hires with less than 1 year tenure are given the "developing contributor" primarily due to them being new to role and not really because of performance reasons? Also, what are the implications of this rating?. I believe getting rated the same next year will spell doom and gloom.
21 replies (most recent on top)
Idea! Let's bell curve the ELT. Who belongs in the bottom tier ???
Bell curve is such a bulshit HR practice. If you are good , you are good. Thats it. Full stop. You really don't need to force people into lower tier buckets. This HR practice flies in the face of "team player" , "we are a team/family" non-sense. Any one with a brain will know that bell curving actually forces people to compete and not be nice to each other. If you really end up with 80% of the employee base as top tier, why not just spread the rewards equally among the 80%. What benefit does the company get out of restricting 15% to top tier. What si the rationale ? If people are top tier, put them in the top tier.
Wait..for any HR reading this...what will happen if you don't bell curve. Gasp!!! Am I forcing you to think ???
@tr , why aren't you in the office then ? I know for a fact you cannot access this site from the office. Hence, you are doing this remotely.
Openjoke social bot.
@sr agreed and confirmed 100%. People that are developing generally are poor performers with terrible attitudes so will be terminated
We need strong office based people for all the growth ahead
It's true. Under 1 year developing. Even if we tried to change it or justify it the bell curve brigade would change it
@k9 - To answer your question about simply refusing: it’s possible, but the end result will be the same because the manager’s upstream can and will change ratings themselves to meet the distribution, making refusal a Pyrrhic victory at best.
@bv it's bullsh-t. We never had this in MF. Never gave no one developing in 5 years, than they fired me and whole office
@jc I realize it's complicated, but I must ask, why not just refuse? To wit: "It has to start somewhere, it has to start sometime"
@bv 100% correct . I had to do the same. Forcing people to developing when they go above and beyond. This is really sickening.
The sad truth is that managers are forced to give at least one developing rating, and giving it to someone new is the most explainable/least damaging. What’s worse is when a team has had no new hires and the manager has to pick a sacrificial lamb. HR will claim no one is forced to give a developing rating if it’s not merited, but that’s pure BS. The distribution is real, and someone’s going down whether they deserve it (or more likely) not.
The loss from losing someone else is bigger than the loss from losing a new hire. It's really that simple. Managers are forced to make this choice every single time — and with this id--tic board of directors, everyone's just resigned to it.
@bp I got offer elsewhere, more than once, somehow way worse salary for higher seniority role
@bc , pay your bills but start looking elsewhere. No future here, might as well get paid elsewhere with a better future.
@b6 needed to pay my god damn bills somehow...
Gee. You must be desperate to want to work for Openjoke.
Lol...welcome to OT newbie. HR and People Leaders should be upfront if the first 12 months are defaulted to "developing contributor" automatically.
You all are getting new hires?
OpenText saving ONE percent increase for the next year. You will be fu--ing low and depressed all the time unless you have good people working with you.
Working at OT at all is doom and gloom. Leave as soon as you can.
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1m15q3g8j
Yes, I joined last December. That’s what it is