Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Some teams have people doing related but different work.

Since they are not all doing the same thing, you cannot rate them 1-4. If someone isn't pulling their weight the manager should know, the rating system is useless in this scenario.

So if I'm told to rate someone at the top and someone at the bottom, and we fire the guy I list last, I've lost someone from my team who is doing work the others are not.

This is legacy Jack Welch garbage and an incredibly lazy way to run a business.

at another company now that does 4 point ranking - Managers are forced to name at least one individual as a 4 (highest) and one as a 1 (lowest - update ur resume) – the "logic" is no mid-point no "average joes" – retirement can't come soon enough after various companies (including WF) and the nonsense we put up with as IT professionals - 30 years ago off-shoring was barely a concept, now it's a business plan – - I should have been a farmer....

5 (vs 2) ratings in 2020 to cull the herd.

interesting! I think there are only 2 ratings though, where did the others come from?

The difference is the termination strategy.

It's being used to fire people for cause (aka PIP).

20% staff cuts mandatory using 1s and 2s (out of 5 pt scale).

Can someone answer this question. I’ve only either gotten Meets or Exceeds on my reviews so I don’t know the answer.

We were on a 4 point scale before this year, right? In other words, under the old system we had two ratings below full meets and we still do? Last year I thought we called it unsatisfactory and needs improvement. So in other words, we’re just adding one more point right, which was exactly how the old MBOs worked?

I’m frankly just as amazed at the ire and hostility towards the five-point scale as I am by the folks who refer to this scheme as “new”. If you have been actually really been working in banking and haven’t been under a five point forced rankings system with forced displacements at the bottom since the late 90’s then I want to know what sleepy institutions you’ve all been working at because it gets worse every year. Most of us would k–l to jump back 20, 10 or even 5 years in this system.

Cost sensitive banks started these in the late 90s and it’s been a long hard road with 20% displaced or gone by attrition for 20 years, 25 in tech.

unsatisfactory, inconsistently meets, meets, exceeds, and consistently exceeds

@1icv+148MujNz it is that hard if your boss does not deem you as a "favorite". I moved from a boss who was fair and equitable to a boss who hands out assignments based on who he likes. Stark difference.

We have people doing work that keeps the bank running, that no one else wants, and the less preferred get that work, because it's not building APIs, micro-services, AI/ML, everything that gets you a better than good rating and recognition.

Running the bank, making improvements to run the bank is work for the lowest caste here, cleaning up the mess left by the hotshots trying to shortcut the systems, instead of working to improve them. But yeah, let's build another bot, another automated call system that does absolutely nothing to serve a customer, or help our customers to actually solve their problems.

Gotta appreciate the rate, otherwise they might use you to illustrate how they will navigate without your vertebrate. So, better assimilate and authenticate and make yourself look like a heavyweight, not a subordinate with the need to oxygenate....excuse me as I pontificate.

LOL... more than 20% of the people working at WF qualify for a one or two, should be pretty easy. Lots of managers deserve a zero.

Ready to go if necessary. Resume updated. Posted to online job sites as "Active". Many, many responses to that posting. Have not replied to them yet. Collecting job contact information for future use if necessary. That is it. A plan for future employment.

This point that many are missing... yes we had a five point rating system but mist managers rarely used the 1 or 2 ratings. In this new ranking system, 20% of staff will be required to be rated a 1 or 2.

The bottom % is not based on true underperformance. You can be the brightest, most dedicated and strongest performer on the team, yet you'll still be rated below target if you're not personally favored by your manager and the manager above or if they can grab some lackey off the street willing to take ten percent less pay than you. Best advice is to begin brown nosing now. And I mean lay it on thick. If you do that successfully, you won't even have to do any work and will be safe from the dreaded 10 to 20% cut each round. These rounds happen about every 3 months.

Here’s a thought. Be a valuable employee that does great work every day and never even come close to being in the bottom 20%. Is it that hard?

I already posted this but here it is again - 20% must be rated a 1 or 2 each year. Enjoy!

Agree with the previous comment, we had the tiered rating system in the past. Why is this a surprise?

The bank had a five level rating system going back to at least 2015, maybe before. Performing vs. non-performing was an initial response to the sales scandal and goals, starting in 2017.

This is hardly earth shaking change, and mostly a return to something that had already been done, maybe with different labels.

It makes utterly no difference, layoffs will happen with or without rankings and labels.

Chainsaw Charlie following his BNY playbook...

forced rankings.. just like Citi and others.

I heard that 20% was suggested for EIT managers, not sure if that's a mandate.

This is what Chainsaw Charlie did at BNYM. Then a 10% quota will be rated unsatisfactory for each unit.