Over the past couple of weeks Managers had to attend calibration training for annual reviews. This is designed that all job families will compete with there fellow peers from across the nation . So yes there will absolutely be force rankings. The issue with this is that performance review are solely based upon a managers opinion of an employees behaviors since achievement of sales goals can not be used in most job families. You will have thousands of Managers who naturally have different opinions of desired behaviors, rating the same job role which by nature will be susceptible to bias and a uneven playing field. The forced rankings will be as percent to job role.
5% =5 Exceptional
15% =4 Highly Effective
40% =3 Effective
25%= 2 Needs Improvement
15%= 1 Unsatisfactory
15 replies (most recent on top)
"SMART objectives"
Please. You should see my CP&D inputs from my manager. There is nothing SMART about them and I laid that all out in one of my ER complaints. Guess what.... I got and email back from ER stating the goals were SMART and my complaint was not substantiated.
You will not win.
A 3 or 4 this cycle still might result in no raise or bonus, just more work for the 1 and 2 who no longer have a job. But every time I think I can predict what this management will do, I am surprised, good and bad.
has any of you had individual objectives or SMART objectives ?
I had group objectives rolled out in MArch. No individual goals, nothing SMART about them either.
Calibration sessions are only supposed to include managers of managers. Think about what that means now and in the future with spans and layers. If I am a manager of managers in the future that “should” mean I manage at least 7 people and at least one manages 7 people. 13 person team at a minimum.
The “goal” of the bell curve is being applied in teams/groups/levels of 50 plus, not every team of 20 people must have 12 meets, 3 exceeds/inconsistent, and 1 consistently exceeds/needs improvement. That would be crazy. Will some leaders treat that bell curve goal as a mandate while others see it as aspirational, and just try to make it look like they tried?
Of course. But keep in mind, your ratings from your manager can now be “calibrated” a level or two in management above them, up or (more likely) down.
My manager showed me the stacked rankings guide and said he was asked to fit his employees in to it. Since he is a good little soldier he was suddenly in total agreement that it was a good idea.
I am a manager and we have not been made to do forced rankings. At all. If you can justify your decisions with data, it is perfectly fine. Of my 12 staff, all are meets or above.
So thanks for playing but try again.
It is our C-Suite and BOD that needs the new higher standards for performance. The problems at Wells Fargo have all stemmed from mis-management and greed from the firm’s executive management team. They are who should need to strap up and prove that they can meet the challenge.
Zactly. Trolls gonna troll
To the OP, your distribution percents are not accurate at all, nor are your names of the performance ratings.
They are:
Consistently Exceeds - 5%
Exceeds: 15%
Meets: 60%
Inconsistently Meets: 15%
Needs Improvement: 5%
The fact you are so wrong makes me think either A) you are trying to stir the pot or B) your calibration training was c-ap
Wells Fargo sure is lucky to have @itfy available to guide us with their wisdom.
Hey all, in most states Wells doesn't need a reason to let you go.
And most of us signed "employment at will" papers when we were hired. You saved yours, right? Go look it up.
Maybe worry less about rankings and more about doing good work, assuming you want to stay at Wells.
Or just enough to not get fired if you're hoping for a package, but that's a gamble you may not win.
And realize that rankings are not fair, try not to get your feelings hurt. Your manager is being told how to rank you, it's not 100% up to them.
I was a manager at another company and I was told how I could and could not rank my people. Highest rankings would need to be extensively justified, and I had to have some low rankings, no matter what I thought about my people.
Except the "challenge" won't be administered equally.
That is, some employees have a protective bubble around them based on D&I factors.
Exactly! There are new, higher, standards for performance. Either strap up and adapt or move on. I’m welcoming the challenge
What's wrong with 3?
3 is the new 4. Crazy times. Lots of people gonna have an even extra chopped bonus as they struggle to be a 3 in the new world order