Is there a way for me to add comments to my own 2020 Performance Evaluation once I click the “I Acknowledge” button?
Is there a place for me to add comments anywhere before acknowledging?
(There have been discussions about the future use of evaluations to identify individuals to lay off.)
Thank you for your help.
1
“fraught”.
The reviews are biased and unethical. I was rated a 2 after two decades of 4 and 5 ratings. My performance was strong last year. I’m even a Golden Spoke winner. I have a hunch why I was rated a 2. However, I got a much higher paying job and am collecting a signing bonus equal to 120% of my annual Wells bonus. So basically the equivalent of 3 annual bonuses.. plus I get to work at a better bank with better retirement benefits and a better culture. It was all meant to be and I am so glad I got out. I’ve already been at my new job for several weeks and it is so refreshing.
The “performing” vs. “not performing” ratings were a response to criticisms of the sales scandals and how bankers were under increasing pressure to open ever more accounts in order to get their bonuses and or more sinisterly, to just keep their job.
Prior to that, the bank had a rating system of 1-5 where you were measured against objectives, not against other people. Some people who don’t know the history of performance plans here, because I guess they have been here only a year or two, have some big opinions.
I’m surprised that so many people seem to know the compensation situation of lots of other people to know that it’s suddenly fair. Over the past two years many teams have gone through title/position changes, level compression, incentive target changes, and MRP range changes, all of these can drastically affect employees and it has been nonstop.
Acknowledge and acceptance are two separate things. Acknowledging is just a check the box routine to show that managers fulfilled their requirement. Accepting the review as final is another story. But if it's even up for debate, then WF probably isn't the place for you. Whether it's management not giving you an accurate review, which in that case, you should probably leave. Or you did get a poor review, and you should also leave.
I think what they are doing is finally implementing a bonus/review system that makes sense
For the first time in a long time the clear message is “if you are a top performer you will get paid handsomely, if you are good you will be paid decently and everyone else will get the sc-aps”
Which is exactly how a bonuses should work.
The problem is for too long Wells encouraged mediocrity by lumping everyone into “ok” and “less than ok”. The incentive became do just enough to end up on the ok side.
So I am not surprised that a lot of people got comfortable and just did the bare minimum. I’ve even realized I need to up my game if I want to get the reward that comes with it.
We have 2 options, we can come here and complain about how unfair it all is. Or we can take personal accountability and put our heads down and put into Wells Fargo what we want to get out of it
For those of you who think that reviews are based only on the work you did/did not do, newsflash- this process is frought with corruption and gaming. Ignorantly dismissing the complaints of your teammates stating that their review was not entirely factual is not helping anyone. Use of political capital by managers is very much a part of "calibrations." Obviously, some people got a poor and yet still fair rating. But, to assume all managers conducted fair ratings processes is rubbish, and smug attitudes to the contrary do not help the company or individual employees.
Ironically, the ratings and review process now being used will produce exactly the result observed here. This is why so many companies have already abandoned this approach.
An honest management team would have started a new methodology in January, not October. They would have clearly communicated expectations and not changed goals the 4th quarter of the year. Most of what was conveyed to my group was never in writing and very vague, “the bar is being raised”, and this was in November.
It’s not an honest approach, it’s an effort to create attrition and it’s likely to create an uncooperative toxic culture, at a point in time when collaboration and innovation are most needed.
If everyone worried about their actual performance as much as they worried about their performance review then they wouldn’t get a review that they don’t like...
I would tend to agree that changes in the evaluation criteria should be made and conveyed prior to application. 2020 was a tumultuous wave of changes in this area. Seemed like every few days something changed. That said, I had people move up / down a level, but there was generally good reason and that reasons explained in the review. There's always going to be border line people that are essentially a judgement call as well. As far as calibration goes, there were some very minor tweaks, but I did manage to get a consistently exceeds and and multiple exceeds through that meat grinder. I did have to write a book to justify them, but they got approved.
In my many years at WF it’s the most unethical thing I’ve seen at this scale. It’s beyond comprehension why management did this because all I see is liability. They could have just lowered bonuses and raises which is the right of the company. But I suspect they are preparing to fire without a package are fine with ruining TM’s reputations as collateral damage. I know TMs who were dropped 2 levels between mid year and the annual with zero feedback to indicate deteriorating performance, principally because it didn’t. It’s because they retroactively changed the evaluation standards and made it much harder to get each rating, and then brought it down even more with the calibration. TMs are p-ss-d and morale is in the toilet.
In all my years of managing I’ve never seen a case where someone dropped 2 levels. You have to pull a ‘Constanza dragging the World Series' trophy around the parking lot’ type of act for that to happen. Lawsuits are coming. I guess we’re gonna have more ‘ethics’ and ‘Vision and Values’ training videos to watch.
"Excellent! if it's not required then why acknowledge???!!! This is great news! I also won't be acknowledging it."
Being considerate isn't required, that's true. I doubt "the man" is laying awake worrying about it though, so let's not kid ourselves that we're sticking it to them. They won't care. All that will happen is that your manager will have to talk to their boss about why it wasn't done and you being difficult. I'm sure that will make things better.
No you cannot add comments anymore. I was ranked as inconsistently meets but the language in my objective description were mostly positive and how I did exceptionally well, and the 2 items that were described as my ineffectiveness were either not accurate or overstated. I have emails and notes to back my position up and wanted to add comments to document that but of course now that they are doing these stacked rankings, under the guise of being collaboration, which is specifically prohibited in the handbook that feature is gone. I hit all of my project completion dates, did work outside of scope to keep driving execution and raised my hand several times yet I got rated a 2/5. Been with the company for 13 years and have never gotten a rating like this! I’ve gotten over bonus targets, been told they want me in the foxhole and that I am a dream employee on all of my other teams. Something stinky is going on and I hope it comes out! Oh and I don’t live in a hub city so who ever made that comment I totally agree that is playing a part here.
Excellent! if it's not required then why acknowledge???!!! This is great news! I also won't be acknowledging it.
@mcv+19a9rChx - I hate to say it but WF is notorious for changing Handbook, Benefits and policies, whenever they see fit. You see, nothing they have is contractual so they can change it whenever they want to circumvent anything.... and they do..... It's WHAT they do!
They don't even follow their own Code of Ethics, Handbook, policies or benefits when they are called out on it.
NEVER.... EVER GO THROUGH THE ER/HR PROCESS!!!
Also, please read the guide from HR. It says right in it, "Please note that acknowledgement does not indicate that the employee agrees or disagrees with the evaluation." Pretty straightforward.
They COULD email a PDF but there's no requirement to. Could be a hardcopy, and there'd be no time stamp. Acknowledgement also isn't required BTW, merely "encouraged". So feel free to not acknowledge and call ER if that's the approach you'd prefer.
@ewh+19a9rChx You obviously work for HR/ER. Your Manager can send it to you via PDF and the Company would have a date/ timestamp. So, I don't agree with you and there is absolutely NO DISCLAIMER indicating what you are acknowledging.
There seems to be a lot of confusion here about what you are acknowledging. All you are saying is that you received the review. That's it. It could be a complete pack of lies, or blowing rainbow colored smoke up your ***...but "did you receive it?" is the only question. HR/ER is how you'd actually contest the contents, not in CP&D.
@pet+19a9rChx, sorry they still need to follow labor laws. HR and Middle management in process of being over hauled.
Sorry dont have time to reach ER. They will listen when I tell them and prove things with facts. You see they are paying off all those workers they denied jobs to now due to their color or other discriminatory areas. They broke the law there too.
@wxd+19a9rChx Sure you can dispute it but it's after ACKNOWLEDGING IT!!!! So, you don't have a leg to stand on!
HR decided to remove it for a reason. HR is not your friend.
If there is something you dispute, you can submit that info through the ER eforms. Once you are on the ER TeamWorks site, there is a “button” where you can submit a dispute for corrective actions, performance review, etc.
yea cause HR and Management are not qualified to access anyone here; they were hired only cause they are order takers and know someone.
This is sick and insane, they need to be removed from their positions or maybe law suits flooding their ranks . They need to find qualified middle management and HR department. This group is not cutting it, completely complacent.
No, you can't add comments. Just acknowledge it. It's crazy because it's terribly one sided if a manager says something about you that is totally unfair, you cannot comment on it.
I'm told h/r decided to remove that comment feature with no explanation. Just acknowledge it. Don't understand.
Small print indicating to refer to their manager? HA!!! what an absolute JOKE!!!!
I'm not acknowledging either. What are they going to do, Lay me off? GOOD!!! Maybe it will put me on the list!!!
I will not be acknowledging.
I think it's just smoke and mirrors. They don't want you to acknowledge with explanation and they will try to pressure you in doing so but won't tell you what you are acknowledging.... See???!!!
I'm also not sure that the role they eliminate isn't because of an individual they want to displace. It's a strategic approach that would possibly work.... when you have competent management. Think about it for a minute... If they wanted to pay for the layoffs, they would offer voluntary packages, like most credible companies; yet, they choose to incorporate unethical practices (Rank and Yank whether they admit it or not) in order to circumvent.
There is less liability on their part if it's due to position elimination and they are hoping it prevents a Title VII, or other EEOC laws from sticking. That could be true, IF your managers know how to properly manage. My management is the epitome of ineptness. They are the true example of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and if you file with the EEOC, be sure to list your mgmt separately, along with WF.
I've never seen WF consider the individual or their performance at all for layoffs. They just layoff certain roles at certain levelsnor in certain divisions.
No. That function was removed. Fine print in email regarding the requirement to acknowledge sent to my group stated this at the bottom of the email and referred the reader to their manager. Frustrating as review did not include the "why".