New to WF and was told by manager that their manager says getting a "meets" on your performance review is the equivalent of getting an "exceeds". I don't believe it, sounds like BS, but want to hear from others who have been at WF longer.
28 replies (most recent on top)
My manager and I are friendly and she has submitted an exceeds for me the last several years and my weighted average was reduced to “meets” several times. There are only a handful of us at my level and a total of 16 in the group. I’ve been told that one “exceeds” can be given out. However, my rating does not appear to negatively impact comp. I’ve gotten substantial bonuses and raises over the past several years. Ironically, it’s been recognized that my strongest performance has been from home. My managers would like for us to continue working from home but the c-suite is forcing them to go in as well, and we also can’t hire because no one wants to work for a company that won’t embrace remote. None of us are customer-facing; all customer interaction is over email and on calls. Management estimates a minimum of a 30% + reduction in productivity from RTO. My guess is that this year’s comp will be decent even for those who get a “meets” and that it will decrease next year after we get hit hard with regulatory non-compliance.
I was told meets means you are a “high performer” and it is nearly impossible to get an exceeds anymore.
And I said my last as I’m curious as to what I may be looking at current salary is around 111k with a meets. Under the old plan my bonus % was %15. I have no idea what to even think for a merit increase.
With the new total variable compensation plan, would love to know thoughts on annual bonus %.
@jtd+1kFExcxV I’m surprised he’s still around.
Sorry 5, 15,60,15,5 percentages
@guu+1kFExcxV there are something around 11 in my group and I got an exceeds. Not sure how many others. I definitely work hard but I don't do anything ridiculous like work extra hours or do specific suck-up-ey things.
5, 10, 60, 10, 5 percent for a 1 through 5 or inconsistently meets through consistently exceeds. No one forces anything and this is not hard and fast. But you better have a good manager who documents goals, created measurable goals if yes then meets. You have to documented stretch goals and a good mgr in your corner. As you go up the chain though are measured against more and more people.
So many variables that make it subjective. Rating could be the result of your direct manager, 2 or 3 up manager, relative quality of coworkers, if any coworkers are due for internal promotion (I think internal promotion now requires exceeds?), just to name a few.
"My manager said it's just about impossible to get exceeds now."
I've heard the same. In a group of, say, 30, you might have one team member who can get Consistently Exceeds and a couple people who can get Exceeds.
My manager said it's just about impossible to get exceeds now.
I got an exceeds on my mid-year. Which is a 4/5 on the newer scale, but still better than meets. I will probably only get meets on year-end because I’ve since started a new role, but when I got the 4 it’s not like I was ki----g myself to go above and beyond at a break-neck pace. I mean think I was performing better than prior years where I only got meets, but nothing too crazy in terms of increased intensity. If anything I’d just accumulated enough experience to start being more productive with the same amount of effort. But all of this just to say it’s clearly not impossible to do better than meets, you don’t even necessarily have to work more than 40 hours.
Bottom line - they pretend to pay us our worth and we pretend to work or care. The end is near for the Charlie machine and this shitshow of a bank.
- Exceeding Expectations basically equates to working for free.
- Working for free IS wage theft regardless of how you gaslight and repackage it satisfy Legal.
- Stagnant wages and merit increases in the face of record inflation only pads Charlie and the C Suite’s (cool name for a band) pockets, while those that do the work suffer.
Wells Fargo is a Federally regulated pyramid scheme boys an girls. It’s designed to suck us dry level by level to feed the top. Why would they lift us up when it’s easier and more profitable to keep us down?🤷🏻
It's not BS, at least in my experience. I was told by a previous manager that he got the directive that whatever was traditionally considered work equivalent to "meets" is no longer the case. We had to go above and beyond to get "meets". He said he has no idea what you would have to do to get "consistently exceeds" or whatever the top category is
I was told this early last year by my manager. Just doing your job won’t get you a meets under the new performance review process. “Exceeds is the new meets” is the “standard for performance “ under Scharf’s expectations (& Elon musk, Google, Amazon, etc).
Top performer on a 8 person team. Meets. +10yr employee.
The ridiculousness of forced ranking becomes more evident over time. If you continue to dismiss low performers, which doesn't seem unreasonable at first, over the years you end up with only the highest performers, but then you're forced to start ranking some of them as poor performers.
yep, well - most ppl used to get exceeds and now most ppl get meets. the exceeds was pretty meaningless because of that. so yes - the bar has been raised and meets is good.
Some posters here are being a bit delusional. IM rankings ARE forced. If not by me as a manager, then by my boss above me or his boss. The quotas are real and enforced. Managers rank across teams so sometimes the IM goes to whoever's manager can't smooth talk the boss as well. This process supports lazy leadership. Instead of setting goals to attain different rankings which can be hard, leaders just give 80% a meets, 10% of their favorites an exceeds and rotate the IMs amongst the troops. I remember my boss praising people who were online more than others, volunteering for BS assignments they never finished and just getting in front of leadership the most. If the boss 2 up from you knows your name then you won't get an IM. Simple as that.
Meets = average to above average
Exceeds = 1allowed per team
If an organization has 100 people and there are 15 managers there will be a handful of poor performers on those 15 teams. It every team will have a person get IM and there will be exceeds as well. The numbers work to the average they don't force them. All ratings are serious and in some cases anything below a meets means the manager is probably think about a CA. Instead of squealing figure out why you are not meeting expectations. Go to DEI meetings, ask to help on RCSA, finish training on time, be reliable and do good work. It’s not hard. If you do this and still get hosed then speak with HR.
I thought people have different strengths so you need all kinds on a team. How can you rank people that are different in their strengths? Unless you are working on a factory line boxing chocolates, ranking is stupid.
everyone always assumes meets is bad but it isn't. put 3 employees in a room all in the same role and given se.set of expectations it is pretty easy to determine who was better or worse than the others and once aligned, one gets meets, one exceeds, and one inconsistent
The new meets is the same old meets. What’s new is the exceeds.
So, that is a lie, however, with this "forced ranking" insanity that was implemented, be grateful for a meets. It is next to impossible anymore to get an exceeds on a review no matter how many hours you work, how many issues you identify and fix, how much work you do, etc.
When you get less than a "meets expectations" on a performance review you are in their plan for a layoff, or performance improvement plan and then firing. Due to the "forced ranking" policy they select some team members to be at the bottom of the ranking. Then make them look like FOOLS with made up stuff, anything negative they can twist the story on, for a bad perfomance review to force them to rank at the bottom.
The bar has been raised for getting exceeds and possibly meets. But it's an exaggeration to say that meets is the new exceeds. The bar hasn't been raised THAT much.