They changed the rules so now managers can only give out a finite amount of "exceeds expectations" - just another way Oracle is now sc--wing over employees and making teams compete internally with each other!
19 replies (most recent on top)
I used to copy and paste from old reviews because I hated doing that garbage. Managers never bothered to look at past evaluations so no one noticed. Everyone knew it was just a bunch of fluff like that Kepner-Trego cr-p they put us through 5-6 years ago
@gn yes entirely it's stack ranking, no two ways about it. I did some research
"Adoption History: Major firms like Microsoft and General Electric famously abandoned the practice after finding it hurt long-term innovation and morale"
So yea, good one Oracle ☹️
@gn this is the most insightful post I have read on this godforsaken pit in a long time, so kudos
@bn
We're not allowed to say we're stack ranking but we are 100% stack ranking. A performance rating bell curve is imposed on a team if one does not naturally exist. Unfortunately we RIFfed all the low and average performers already.
Also, project reviews heading upwards reflect a stagnation and loss of momentum across the board but leadership has yet to acknowledge it, and the resources/planning are not in place to reverse it. If this was anywhere else I'd guess we were being set up for acquisition, but thats hard to imagine here, for many reasons.
So my guess is that we are being set up to publicly acknowledge that AI datacenter plans are not going to be fulfilled on the previous schedule. This will coincide with messaging to stop spending so freely on AI internally. This has been coming for a while.
@gb it followed up with “ If that genuinely matches your experience, it’s a rough environment to be in. The biggest warning sign isn’t just that politics exist—every large company has some—but that people start believing effort and results don’t meaningfully affect outcomes. Once employees think promotions, ratings, or opportunities are disconnected from performance, motivation drops and the strongest people often become the first to leave.”
Ugh. So true.
I asked ChatGPT to write me a short paragraph on what the worst company culture is: It’s so accurate for Oracle :/
The worst company culture is one where politics matter more than performance, accountability is inconsistent, leaders take credit and shift blame, and employees are driven by fear instead of trust. High performers burn out, mediocre work is rewarded, innovation stalls, and the best people eventually leave.
I frankly don't care. The reviews are waste of time. I just put a 3 and blah blah blah. IF Oracle gave raises and promotions I would care. No raise in over 4 years, yet record profits. Hopefully this is the last review ever and I get on the list or move to a simple job. 30+ years is total burnout now at combined companies. Its unfortunate ORCL or US do not have sabaticals or long vacation to recharge batteries. (2 months etc). Unlimited PTO is BS.
Our group is down by over half of what it was in January, and if you count from last July it's probably down to about 25% of what it was. So, while I usually just blow off the focal cause we all know it doesn't matter when you're product has been termed Legacy.
This year, I went full in exceeds expectations cause why would Oracle otherwise keep me over all those that they let go.
The entire process is d-mb and probably shouldn’t exit. Not valuable for anyone involved.
Normal distribution argument is only relevant if you are using perf review exclusively for stack ranking.
I was under impression that performance review was about your performance against your role expectations. If everyone exceeded expectations they all should get it. If everyone underachieved - they also should all get below average.
Normal distribution curve is the observed outcome in a statistically large random sample without manipulation of observations. Leaders with 30+ people must evaluate and rank their staff, but they are lazy. So they ask managers of small teams to manipulate grades. This unfairly benefits the top halves of mediocre teams. It makes the above average people work harder to get higher ratings. That's control.
Ok then we should ask managers for exact plans on how to get a higher rating. What should we do different this coming year.
If they can’t provide a plan then you can argue that focal and reviews are pointless they don’t provide any way to improve if you clip the wings of those that try to fly higher!
We should just have a lottery at this point and may be including an auto rif option too
Performance ratings become meaningless when everyone gets a 4/5.
If 20% of your team gets a 5 and another 50% gets a 4, you’ve basically turned “outstanding” into “above average.” At that point the ratings stop differentiating performance.
@b3 Yeah like 30% of the company was ranked as a 5 / outstanding by their manager, that’s why it was worthless.
Why would they do it? What's even the point?
last year I got Outstanding with 0 salary hike and 0 bonus. So it's not like giving those ratings cost them anything at all.
It’s supposed to be a normal distribution. Everyone fu---d everything up the last few years and gave out 4s/5s like candy.
If 80% of the org gets a 4 then 80% of the org feels entitled to promotions. If there is a need for 10% layoffs across the board and only 2% are in 1/2s then they basically just pick people at random.
This year they actually want to give out promotions and merit to the top contributors and do it properly.
Even if your M2 rates you high it can be down rated by executives at higher levels - they also are pushing to not promote people and I suspect not give any raises.
OP, you are recognizing the constraints that are deliberately being put in place by the company to impede your growth. My questions to you, are you actively seeking employment outside of Oracle? If not, why not? How bad does it have to get before you take action to protect yourself?
@OP that's not new ..same MO every year.....