Does anyone know how the calibration process works at WF? I don't know how it can't be biased when they are doing forced rankings, even if they won't admit it.
8 replies (most recent on top)
It's forced rankings no matter how often HR claims otherwise. In my area we had to be 100% under the curve, no excuses, no matter what rationale you had for your ratings.
The problem I see with this is that many teams have 3-4 people on them. My team for example. We all do our jobs as well as can be expected given the current environment and constant change of guidance/expectations, but I guess now some of will be artificially ranked lower just because of the calibration.
@1pyk+17GJTfBv _ do you see rampant disregard for D and I in tech controls ? That would be very sad .
There are classes for managers on the new process. I signed up but the truth is at least in my area that I will get told what everyone will get, then it will probably get changed 328984930 times in between. Last year after I locked my numbers HR came behind and tweaked them and no one could tell me why.
What I hate is they basically tell employees what the line is then force managers to do the opposite. Calibration is a joke - I have seen it done well, but here it is who the big boss likes gets the better rating. Decisions are being made at higher levels and those of us bottom feeders have no choice in this.
I am trying to get out of here - this place is awful.
Forced rankings Charles needs to read some articles as too how destructive forced ranking are.
- My peers and I met with our leader to review the distribution of ratings across the team. With a few exceptions most of our DR’s were within the curve. We agreed on the fee outliers, made a couple of adjustments and called it good. Fast forward - Our leader meets with his peers, their group head and HR. He’s told that our ratings are too high and we need to adjust at least 15% downward. I don’t know what they’re doing, but my guess is it won’t be good for us minions.
As with many other processes at Wells I’d imagine it’s artificially complex, over-engineered and produces highly questionable outcomes. I expect nothing other than a bunch of back door deals and rampant favoritism disguised as “a fair process” in my group. The people making the “calibration” know little or nothing about the people doing the work and how the work gets done.
Calibration done correctly isnt forcing a distribution but actually is the process of viewing evaluations for similar jobs against the expectation and outcomes to be sure there is fairness in the evaluation
Again when done correctly it should result in fairness
Large organizations would expect the distribution of ratings to produce a curve. The slant of the curve toward higher ratings or lower ratings would occur when the org had better or worse outcomes against expectations