I am a Vice President and gave one of my direct reports a “meets expectations” rating for his annual performance review. At the SVP manager calibration session, other managers pushed back, and I was told by my manager that I need to knock my direct report down to “inconsistently meets” expectations. Then, my manager tried to tell me that inconsistently meets expectations is Not a bad rating. It just means that my direct report will need to work on some things, and may take a haircut on his bonus. Then, I asked if my direct report would be a target For a future lay-off based on the “inconsistently meets” rating, and he Tried to downplay it and say it would not have an impact. I think I am being fed a bunch of B.S. What do you think?
34 replies (most recent on top)
@elsoz+17x9QDZT. Interesting....I filled in for my manager while she was on Maternity leave. How did she reciprocate? She added a nebulous line at the bottom of my (good) review, that her manager wrote for me (as she was still on leave when they were being "calibrated"), I got her manager to agree that he never wrote that line & to take it off. She said it had already "been submitted" and that there was nothing she could do, while also denying that she wrote anything "extra" (slightly negative connotation) to my already glowing review. It was pure sabotage. I called HR & they said it could still be changed. My inexperienced (in banking), back stabbing manager just wanted to "ding" me, maybe she thought it would solidify her job on returning to the office, seeing as I did such a great job while she was out. I was thankfully nevertheless not downgraded to the "needs improvement" category. She had set me up to fail before I filled in for her as well. I moved to another job right after bonus time. Needless to say, HER manager moved her off the team a few months later. She didn't think I'd create waves over it, and by doing so, her manager saw what she was really like and acted accordingly.
The manager round tables are extremely biased, uninformed and diabolical! Close to the end of year reviews it’s best to get on all of their radars to help your end of year.
I don’t like it.
if you are a manager and had a performance rating you wrote overridden, and you don't understand why, watch your own back.
I guarantee that it means you are viewed as having some gaps as a manager in understanding the standards of performance that are expected and that you are supposed to uphold.
A performance review system within a dysfunctional system/culture can only reap dysfunction as a result. It is extremely laughable and disappointing, the needle on the compass will never find True North at WF. Maybe that is the point, we are all clinically bipolar working in this place.
"THERE IS A CURVE. Check the other posts... Others have posted the bell curve."
Sure, because politics is never involved in such things.
Got displaced few days after getting "Inconsistently meets".
My manager did not follow HR guidelines like "Discuss performace with employee then submit review".My manager submitted
my ratings first then conducted discussion few hours after rating submission hence I was not able do defend my ratings during discussion. Did lot of sacrfice for the company though.
Byeeeeeeeeeeee 👋🏼👋🏼👋🏼👋🏼
I quit WF after two decades of loyal service over the BS rating. My former manager told me directly that she didn’t get to make the final decision. Then I was told by my 2-up manager that if I dispute my review, my action would put me in focus of 3-up manager and that would only make things worse. I was also told that there is an expectation that about 60% of team members would need to get an Inconsistently Meets in order for their manager to meet their goals. It’s not the Wells Fargo I started working for years ago. Home Lending hired Kristy Fercho who’s got no idea how to lead and keeps screaming about COMPETE which is a silly acronym taken from a second rate woman’s basketball coach of a second rate college team.
F them. I got a great job elsewhere making more $ and they even met my vacation requirements. It’s a job seekers market out there. I recommend you quit if you can.
A bunch of you will know who I am when I write this. If true and systemic, the policy (or pattern if not a written policy) is arbitrary and capricious and may be actionable. It would really be no different than firing 5,000 whistleblowers for the fraudulent sales practice scandal, but on a much grander scale. It is fraudulent. It is defamatory. It is both libel and slander because it is being written and spoken. It could be a lot more. Like if the actual reason the people’s rating were knocked down is due to some kind of discriminatory bias.
The fact that anyone is writing about this is extraordinary. We have enough stress with our political leadership, the election, the economy and the flu season (and possibly Covid). Why do any of of us work for WF? Yes, we can hope the CEO and staff are cleaned out, but that will happen after many of us are booted.
I guess the best thing to do is dust off our resumes now and be prepared for our salvation from Wells ... it is time to shower, shave, take off our pajamas and start interviewing.
Of course BNY Mellon does this. That's where Chainsaw is from. It is truly toxic in so many ways. It creates an environment where I am not likely to help my peers unless asked because I need them to fail. It's not just about my performance anymore. Employees are hesitant to take on stretch assignments because they know that any even perceived level of failure will leave them a 2 or 1 next review rating. It is being done to create churn and exits to save on future severance costs. The constant turnover in these environments costs so much more than establishing goals for employees to attain. The is the lazy leader way of managing performance where we don't have to work hard to establish pertinent, measurable goals. The objectives set by leadership are a joke of "Do the right thing" perceptions.
"Pull up the performance review policy"
you obviously don't get it. it doesn't matter if there is a policy for anything. policies are there for a check in the box so they can tell the regulators they have a policy. WF violates its own policies on a daily basis.
I had a documented case of retaliation, submitted the complaint, cited the policy, had everything in writing, including the retaliation (yes, my lifer manager was arrogant enough to retaliate in writing).
ER's response..... NOT SUBSTANTIATED...
YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CHANGE YOUR RATING. PERIOD.
It does not matter how much documentation you have to refute it. You will file your ER complaint and it will come back as not substantiated.
I tried with last year's review and with this year's mid-year review. In both cases, I had written documentation refuting what my manager had in my review, as well as emails from my peers contradicting things my manager had in my review.
Both times ER came back and did not agree there were issues and told me to talk to my manager or their manager.
Some of you keep saying it's happening at this company. I know for a fact that other companies besides Wells Fargo practice doing this as well. BNY Mellon among one of them and a few others. It's not just Wells.
Pull up the performance review policy it clearly says a manager must not force rank or forced distribution at an individual team level. Print it out and save it. Save it for when your boss says I had no choice and then escalate - it’s clear as day
We should rate employees based in their performance in the form of BOTH impact / results and how they go about their work. Empathy for the impact on the employee if they don't get meets is honorable and cute but has no place. Meets requires that you exhibit all the expected behaviors - being difficult to work with is not an admirable trait but influencing is. Look at our results - financial, business, and regulatory and we are the arm pit of banking. Perhaps the right distribution is where 50% don't meet expectations. As a manager I witnessed my manager conduct calibration fairly and equitably without forcing any distribution. And anyone who knows what their current rating is has a leadership team completely out of line. Folks wake up, we aren't cutting it - period.
Dealing with a similar situation. I rated my employee as exceeds. Based on the rating guidance, I firmly believe they meet requirements for the exceed rating. However, we are out of distribution. I was told by my leadership that I must move them to meets. I pushed back multiple times and provided documentation as to why they exceed. Had to rewrite their evaluation and change their ratings to meets. What is happening at this company is wrong on so many levels.
OP. Your gut is spot on. Depending on number of reports you have, it could impact your job as well. Those are the facts.
Old Charlie would definitely be rated a 2 at best. How ironic he is so bad at his job but getting to cut 1/4 of the employees. Stock has been in the toilet since he came on......
Your DR will only be a target for layoffs if layoffs are needed in your area. Not all areas will have layoffs. Additionally, the PM ratings are no longer being used as criteria in displacement decisions. They are creating “job criteria” by role and based upon whether or not you have to lay-off, a “single-rater” then needs to rate all their people (regardless of performance rating) against that job criteria. The lowest rated ones in terms of job criteria will be the ones who are subject to being let go.
Shouldn’t people at a SVP level be comfortable with “challenging” personalities? Agree this is a s— up contest and I see it in my own department. Was rated an Exceeds but won’t be surprised if I get downgraded and would honestly be delighted if I got a package. Time to be able to get my work done without having to spoon feed it up the chain of command
This is exactly what I thought, fact free made up perception nonsense.
“Come across in a challenging manner”
What performance objective is tied to being a doormat? Embrace candor? Do the right thing?
These rankings are a brown nosing contest. Anyone with real marketable and high skill levels should plan their exit, you are not needed here, brown noses only.
No offense but you need to sack up and be a real leader. Sometimes that means telling your boss no when it’s justified.
OP- I gave him a well written review with 3 solid/good examples of accomplishments for each performance objective.The push back was based on feedback of svps who don’t work Directly with my direct reports, and the feedback was that the direct report could come across in a bit of a challenging manner.
It might come down to what you wrote for the review. If you didn't do a good job writing the review, then it may seem your direct didn't do a good job overall.
Same thing happened to me; I had my manager (who forced me to make the edit) send me that instruction via email. I doubt that person will be here to ever get that performance evaluation. It's even money if I'll be here at that time.
OP here- 17X9QDZT, I am in WIM Compliance. The Deputy Chief Compliance Officer told us that we only had 3% of employees in the below meets expectations bucket, and managers need to downgrade more employees from meets expectations To inconsistently meets and needs improvement.
I sat on a meeting and listened to SR Mgr tell his directs more people have to be marked lower. Too many were “meets”. One manager refused. This is CB Risk and Control. The lay-off wave - as they call it - Nov 17.
It’s pretty obvious that they need managers to make people look bad because if they fire them they can fall back on their performance review. Then they tell us to be honest. They expect us to fall in line and I will not. I will not slash the rating of great employees so they can avoid bad press or lawsuits.
tell your manager that your rating is justified and that if they want to change it to something that isnt justifiable they can change it
This “inconsistently meets” business is being talked about all over the place.
No one knows or won’t say the actual impact of these ratings. Assume that you are being indirectly lied to, but also know this is happening everywhere.
Stacked ranking of employees is poisonous and counterproductive, other managers should not get a say in the performance review of people they don’t know. And that’s not even addressing the fact that these “standards” are changing as reviews are being done, not when goals are communicated. It’s ugly business.
Just because the OP isn't the only person it happened to doesn't mean it's OK. Some people are actually able to empathize under these circumstances. Just apparently not you.
Happening to a lot of managers in IT that’s for sure
I am a Vice President, have no direct reports, and was rated "Needs Improvement" with an extremely dubious write up that was not based on fact.
I don't feel so bad for you or your direct report.
THERE IS A CURVE. Check the other posts... Others have posted the bell curve.
That is absolutely shameless. Crummy on so many levels. I'm sorry for you, and your direct.