With all the people who are saying they got a 3 or lower, I wonder if that will be used in part to determine who is displaced.
With the exception of the years where we didn't have a actual rating, I have received a 4 every year (meets/exceeds).
Any chance that my 4 rating for this year puts me in a much better place than those who got a 2/3? Or, does the rating really not matter much when it comes to who gets the boot?
I'm also a little concerned because I don't fit into any type of diversity profile.
14 replies (most recent on top)
The numerical rating was ultimately pointless up front. Managers and orgs were required to do a "recalibration" and stack ranked you using the bell curve. So you were shown a 3, but could have ranked a 2 behind the scenes. Truth is only way to know is to have been close with your manager. It's easier to cut low performers this way in whatever org they belong to that needs reduction. I personally know analysts in orgs that did the FTE analysis and were in those conversations. Managers were livid of having to force rank people as 2 that were really 3.
Reviews came well after the lists for elimination were required. Reviews only cover, from an HR perspective, who they already identified to go. By issuing a lower rating, you have less grounds to file against the bank. I had 4 5’s and a 4 (the first year at the bank), was displaced Q4’19 when our group was moved under people I’d never worked with or even knew their names. Someone I’ve never heard of held a conference call, admitting in opening that he didn’t even know who was on the call; but, the purpose of the call was to advise the start of our 60-day notice. I’m in the Charlie-Saul show.
@acp. where are the managers going? I am on my third now, but they seem to move to contributer role in another department
Somebody mentioned BNY Melon and frequent layoffs. Same thing happened at AmEx over a long period. Frequent layoffs with more and more moved off shore to India.
Other than the obvious rank and yank, I believe mid year rating were provided due to the upcoming spans and layers. Cutting a bunch of middle management and there is no guarantee your current manager will be your manager at end of year review. Mid year rating will most likely be your end of year rating. I am on my third manager... 4th will take place with spans and layers.
Ratings may be worthless, but TMs weren’t supposed to get rated at mid year until 2 weeks before reviews started. Common sense will tell you ratings do mean something this year.
If they are eliminating 20%, then it is safe to say you have a 1 in 5 chance of being displaced, and this is the first round. At BNY Mellon, there were layoffs every quarter, so it is going to be bad over time.
those ratings are useless, look at who is rating you? I don't think i need to add the fake rating to my resume
I wouldn't take the ratings seriously; I guess I am the best of the worst, so going somewhere else I have to do tons of preparation daily to be able to operate among people working in the current times to work along side of them. That's what i have done for the past year so I would say i am ready to make the jump and make the right salary level for my field and skill level. The pay here is the worst part, doesnt match the industry.
Any reason you can think of that makes you safe, can also be a reason to cut you. If you’ve been getting high ratings and your org is over staffed or has changing roles, a high salary going with your high ratings can be a reason to cut you.
People are reading a bit too much into this ratings business. The performance system was rolled out across the board partly due to HRs troubles with the regulators and a consent order. Not saying it’s not meaningful, it’s just not the only thing that matters and was done for reasons beyond layoffs.
A cloud architect getting a 2 and a floofy business consultant type role getting a 4 are a good example. If I need an architect more, I am going to cut the other person. A crude example admittedly. Consolidation of teams, market exits, obsolescence, how expensive you are and how long you have been around can all be factors.
lol probably much less to 0 bonus to people who got 2 or 3. This is a way to force people out.
@khv if you are a 1, you should be fired. We should have always followed this methodology
It's clear why they went away from the pass/fail ratings. They needed a way to determine who they would manage out of the company. And they've also depressed ratings. Many people (me included) were 4/4 performers for years. A 3 was considered sub-par but meant you were doing your job.
Span of control and de-layering will make manager positions redundant. So they need some criteria for who goes and who stays. Tenure may come into play to some extent. But if you look at some orgs in tech, they just hired some pretty senior people. You think they're going to lay off people they handpicked to come over from Chase or BofA? Nope.
Then when they get to the worker bee level, they'll also have to figure out who goes since it won't necessarily be b/c they've combined teams. In a 20 person team 4 people will get laid off – hopefully most of that is contractors, but it'll be employees too.
Leadership (Chainsaw Charlie) required that 5% of all the ratings were “improvement needed” (the old 1 rating) and 15% needed to be “inconsistently meets” (the old 2 rating). 60% needed to be assigned a “meets” rating. If there are displacements in a group (as long as the entire group isn’t eliminated), logic would tell us the low hanging fruit goes first. Leadership hasn’t said this yet but the writing is on the wall.
3 is meets
- maybe if you are a 1 you will be fired;
- I think it will have more to do with length of time in same position, maybe people with 15+ years in same role . They are looking for new ideas, etc.
- Also managers and high paid personnel too will be at risk; too many layers of management preventing progress