In Auto, a PDF was circulated to communicate that there are no forced rankings and all that.
Who the f actually believes this?
They did officially state that spans and layers need to be 7, but didn't say what would happen to managers with fewer than 7.
There are not enough rock stars in the world for every company to have only rock stars.
Nothing but rock stars is a Jack Welch fever dream, and we know that guy was all smoke and mirrors.
Bell Curve was ordered... several managers ordered and have the emails to prove from UM that they had to rate on bell curve. when rankings were done UM went in and changed all those rankings in some cases significantly lower for revenge some cases going from 3's to 2's or even 4's to 2's
@1kfi “Do you people really think we don’t have 20% dead weight around here.
and
@1xvv “Given the efficiency rate.....there has got to be 60K low performers and then some.”
It sounds like you don’t think you are part of the 20% deadweight. Or one of the 60,000 low performers.
Please do share with us the secrets of your greatness. We are eagerly waiting ...
The veteran employees are protected. Lots of new employees getting rated 2s with less that 6 months experience.
Bell curve is a real thing. In addition I must rate my 9 employees 9-1.
With all of the issues WF has...how could anyone possibly be rated exceeds. Clearly there is a large population that is under performing and/or does not have enough meaningful work. Given the efficiency rate.....there has got to be 60K low performers and then some. By not identifying the lower performers you are only treating the high performers poorly. Simple math. bell shaped curve. that is life.
Do you people really think we don’t have 20% dead weight around here?
At other orgs, I’ve never rated anyone a 5(consistently exceeds). I’ve only seen a few handed out as well.
I’ve rated a few fours but get challenged during calibration exercises and have to defend those.
3 are aplenty
Sereral 2’s and put on PIP. No one gets a 2 more than once. They either get better or go.
Never a one because they would have been fired long before review times
Any manager giving out the equivalent of 4 and 5 to people year after year has expectation issues and is probably a bad manager. The more senior your role the more difficult it should be to exceed expectations.
Oh and hard work and long hours doesn’t mean anything.
I bother to post to post to share the info I have and to share what most managers probably are thinking. I could lie and say I won't toe the line and will take it all the way to the supreme court if I have to, but that would be a disservice. I don't like what's happening amy more than anyone else and I'll fight for my teams ratings as much as I can. I wonder, if ones distribution screwed more towards 1s and 2s, if they would force managers to give them 4s and 5s, probably won't get complaints then.
Post from TheLayoff.com
It's definitely real, it's at AU level.
Then why bother posting at all you spineless name for cat but starts with a P, Managers like you are half our problem.
But that is my thought now and if looming layoffs I may end up towing the line, but I'll see how it pans out.
51 minutes ago by Anonymous
| 3 reactions (+3/-0)
Post ID: @rom+17exCoBS
So many hr complaints on mid year they had to take a step back and reword the message but it is happening. If u are managed out, and a protected class find others and get an attorney. Likely they are NOT looking at those metrics and therefore unintentionally will set up for a lawsuit.
The official story from HR is that there are not forced ratings or quotas. We have been told that our business line (Comm Bank) absolutely IS forcing distribution to match the curve. As the ratings go up the chain via the "calibration meetings" decisions will be made to drop ratings in order to obtain the distribution. Let's face it, HR can't come out and say it's a forced distribution. That would open up to law suits. But the managers from Charlie's directs on down are enforcing it, whether HR knows it or not.
Guidance is that the distribution is only to be looked at and applied to larger groups, 60+ employees and not in smaller groups. If the distribution is skewed there are a number of meetings managers and managers of manager are to have together to align across these larger groups between 10/14 and when everything needs to be locked in. Now in reality this isnt always what is happening. I know the manager if our larger group is basically forcing us managers with smaller teams to distribute our ratings to the guidance, I think due to laziness on their part. I plan on rating my team how I see fit and based on all the training and guidance given and will provide the review to back it up. If my group head wants to make a change they can make it themselves but I don't plan on doing it and won't adjust the review to match. But that is my thought now and if looming layoffs I may end up towing the line, but I'll see how it pans out.
Please do better than that screenshot. You could have made that in Excel on am iPhone.
Forced ranking and quotas are 100% real. Our group in Corporate Risk is being pushed to find 1’s.
Look of course they’re going to “say” no forced rankings and it’s “just guidance” just like they’ve said there’s no cap on promotional increases or paying midpoint but what actually happens (actions) are contrary.
Same with the person saying there’s no number scale; yes they converted to 5-consistently exceeds and 3-meets but guess what? There’s still a number associated or inference because of the 5 options.
There ARE forced rankings at WF. I'm advised grade level, compensation, raises (lack of) are HR directives, manager acts as if not his doing. I am also advised by him that there is no MRP (I am below). In wholesale. Also advised all receive level 3 until bank issues resolved, unless spectacular performance.
There absolutely are forced rankings in Auto! You got fed a bunch of BS!
Does anyone have a copy of this PDF they can share via anon link like the image below.... it appears if you had a CA, warranted or not, no matter how hard you worked this year, you're doomed to not get above a 3, that's news. Remember, some Corrective Actions's are not warranted.
I can tell that a number of the "mangers" in this thread are not fully informed. There is NO number scale this year. If you took any of the manager training you would know that we are not to refer to it as a number scale so nobody gets a 1, 2, 3,... This was on purpose because the culture wants to get rid of thinking of someone as a 1 employee or a 5 employee. Once we get rid of the numbers then a Meets is "Performance fully meets all established expectations. The employee is a valued contributor to the success of the department and Wells Fargo. The employee demonstrates the expected level of behaviors." If that is the definition then as a manger I look to see if it is true per employee. I like my team but there are times some people don't meet all the established expectations. There are times when an employee (see not saying team member) exceeds expectations in a number of areas. The 1-5 rating went away about 2 years ago. Last year there was a performance excellence flag in most areas. In reality different people perform differently and some managers are more lenient in their reviews. Looking across the enterprise there should be a normal distribution of the evaluations and this is just a way to find some of the areas with outliers. I have received performance excellence flag myself and top number when we use to provide numbers but then received a Met on my midyear check in. Not really concerned with it. If people are not meeting expectations then I would be concerned. For those of you that are thinking this is unfair I bet you can think of one person you have worked with in the last year and asked yourself how do they still have a job. I know this is a generalization but I do wonder that about some people (not just some of the executives).
Those % you are looking at are the forced rankings.
5 - 5% Consistently Exceeds
4 - 15% Exceeds
3 - 60% Meets
2 - 15% Inconsistently Meets
1 - 5% Needs Improvement
the pdf was circulated to various managers. It includes examples of words to use for each rating as well as sample write ups, even noting that "high quality documentation to justify the ratings is critical"
https://i.ibb.co/9NrXrLk/Screen-Shot-2020-10-02-at-08-13-01.jpg
No one knows how it will go but during mid years I was told that my rankings had to be lowered, In theory I do not disagree but until we stat review people in a larger group it makes no sense.
In group Steady Eddie there are 15 people Steady Eddie types they get a couple 4s, a couple 2s and the rest 3s.
In group Slugville a couple people that actually wake up get 4s a couple people they have to check their pulse get 2s and the rest get 3s.
On Team Rockstar we have 5 people who cured Covid, 5 that cured cancer and 5 that did the work for Slugville.
Guess what? In the forced stacked ranking you could have cured COVID and received a 3. Had we reviewed then all together Rockstar and Eddie would have been the 5/4/3s and Slug would by 3/2/1 but instead they all have winners and losers and in my mind THAT is the issue.
The moral of the story is get put on the worst team and have a pulse. At least as it is now
If, as a manager, you truly believe your employee was a 3, you should raise your hand with HR. I was on a leadership call and they made it very clear that while it’s a guide, it’s not required. I’d like to see their response if someone reports being forced to change ratings.
Forced ranking is real. I was forced to change rankings for a couple of people in my group from 3 to 2 - after telling them they were threes. Just to make sure the percentages were as dictated from on high.