Managers. Anyone else being forced to follow a curve for ratings? I was basically told if I did not adhere, leaders would make the choice for me.
25 replies (most recent on top)
To Current or Future Managers who give in to WF forced ranking down or forced “accelerated attrition” tactics: You are an a$$hole.
I conveniently forgot to adjust a rating. Guess what happened? Nothing.
Yeah, no S. Where's the Epstein client list again? Oh yeah, in the shred bin of the powerful. You don't even get to read it, let alone get any semblance of justice for the victims. Same thing with Fauci's crimes against humanity.
lol, it's 2023 and absolutely no one is held accountable for anything anymore. Unless you're an undesirable, then the DA is all over ya.
Of course lawyers always go after the company. There is a lawsuit "on behalf of an individual" as opposed to a class action lawsuit "on behalf of many people". The process is that, WF internal lawyers work with external lawyers first. Then WF internal lawyers interview LOB managers. Recording is prohibited during any of these conversations in order to protect attorney-client privilege. Then WF internal lawyers discuss matters with external lawyers. There is a lengthy process for any legal cases, whether a lawsuit is on behalf of an individual or on behalf of many people.
Post ID: @ysz+1pB33hod
Lawyers will name as many possible for the best chance of as much return. Agree that a & payout won’t come (much) from an individual manager but it’s holding them accountable. It also helps “convince” some managers to be honest about how things went down. A manager who has been sued (and lost) isn’t very marketable in the job market (except maybe at WF).
I love how all these shinanogans go on yet they they still have the nerve to toute people as a competitive advantage and pay for performance.
Yeah, lawyers aren't lining up to go after individual managers, most of which don't have much money. Could it happen? Sure, but it's very very rare.
Wake up people. Wells Fargo is a toxic shitshow. Lower your expectations and get out if you can. God Bless
I have been with Wells Fargo long enough to know 3 people who filed complaints to Ethics line and 1 person who sued her manager. Ethics line dismissed all 3 claims, saying they could not substantiate the claims even though the employees presented solid email evidences. One lawyer contacted the manager and an LOB executive for questioning. Wells Fargo management team categorically denied the employee's claim, saying she was a disgruntled employee simply because she could not perform well. The case was eventually dismissed and this employee was moved to a different team.
Wells Fargo has a strong defense mechanism where toxic executives and managers can protect each other. They are never susceptible to individual lawsuits. The only times the bank gets impacted are class action lawsuits, regulatory sanctions and news headlines.
I am a manger in COO. I don't know much about other LOBs, but retaliations are rampant here. There were two good managers on our team who constantly fought and defended good performance for their direct reports. Our senior manager got annoyed because those two were not yes-man people. We believe he set up a trap for those two managers to fail and eventually screwed their career. This senior manager had several connections to equally toxic but powerful executives, so many managers were afraid to create conflicts with him. Three months later, he demoted both of the two managers to individual contributor roles and moved them to a DEI team, which didn't have much work to do. We mid level managers don't have much control, we have no choice but to follow whatever our senior managers tell us, and as necessary, we have to manufacture extra excuses to lower the performance ratings of our direct reports.
Some Senior managers cannot tolerate any frictions because they are so arrogant and thin skinned. If you question their instructions, they get angry with the "you stepped on my toe" reaction. Those types of senior managers have no morals and they always retaliate if we don't comply with their explicit instructions. This kind of environment forces mid level managers to lie to his/her directs about their performance ratings. This is very common especially in COO. It is easy to preach good things but, in reality, it is not so easy to practice good things around here.
I pushed back very hard on a down-rating that I was being forced to give and knew that it was not deserved. I was finally told that if I didn't do it, then I'd be insubordinate, and the rating would be changed anyway. Once they have it in their heads that a certain number must be below a meets, then there's nothing to stop it. They want the numbers so that they look good on their HR reports and so that they have layoff targets.
To Current or Future Managers who give in to WF forced ranking down or forced “accelerated attrition” tactics:
I realize you believe you are only “doing what you are told” and “have a family to feed” but just know that some employees WILL SUE YOU personally along with WF. And please know that WF will NOT hesitate to throw YOU directly under that bus!
Been here a long time, ever since the forced downgrading of legit 4/exceeds to meets, those impacted just do nothing now. Very little output. No one cares anymore. No one busting their tale off. The company has lost significant productivity since Shart. Prior to this, it was uncommon to see poor performance. Everyone was trying and producing
barring anything illegal, when push comes to shove most managers will do what they are told especially if their performance and job are on the line. same for most employees as well. Many use loudspeaker and the global survey to voice concerns but that usually goes no where. Speaking of global survey, what ever became of the results?
As a non-manager, it feels/seems that middle mgmt is an absolute powerless voice in shaping change (incl how perf reviews are handled). At least when observing the direct managers around me, they operate as frictionless as possible. Maybe this is out of fear that any bad visibility from the business, their employees or upper mgmt would affect their job security.
Yet friction is necessary for opportunity and growth. It benefits every one and the company's bottom line. One would think that in a professional environment it would be a safe place to collaborate and disagree from time to time. This is critical to maximizing our working hours here. Friction demonstrates actual care for one another and the company.
We are in an incredibly weird era of the company, participation alone is not enough to achieve MEETS or EXCEEDS.
No forced rankings in Risk as long as you are in a hub.
this does happen although some groups are harsher than others. if they want you to move someone down and you don't agree with it, make sure you document all conversations around it to cover yourself. if your performance review doesn't have any language justifying the lower rating then tell your management they can lower of they want and they will have to update the review language. i would also tell them they need to be the ones giving the review because if you do you will be honest and tell the employee why they were rated lower.
Technically, all he has to do is rate them all meets, but then they get a $20m bonus somehow
Since being downgraded to meets, I have produced less and less.
Director here with ~80 reports. I had nobody ranked lower than Meets. Was not asked to revise anyone lower. Was asked to move a couple from Exceeds to Meets. Will comply with ask and give those impacted employees more money in comp regardless of the recommendations.
More #wellsfargoshitshow
Not forced to fit a curve, but anything other than meets is mercilessly questioned. I find this somewhat comical. They tell us over and over again that meets is a great rating and it means you're doing every element of your job correctly and on time, but we really don't have to justify that "great rating" at all. The employee could be a total cr-p performer and unless there is a formal corrective action no one will ever challenge it. This is how you know it's not a great rating at all, but if in fact mediocre like everyone rightly assumed when we went to this rating scale. If you don't have to justify it, it's NOT a good rating.
Absolutely. There are forced rankings. I am still waiting for someone to ask Charlie at a town hall, which one or two of his direct reports did he rate "needs improvement".