Thread regarding AIG (American Intl Group Inc.) layoffs

You are lucky you didn't take partially met actually, maybe in your team.someone reisgned before sti and they had spare funds.

It’s BS that if they score you high that they have to give you higher STI. I got rated Above and Beyond and I got the same STI percent as everyone else in my team, and no they weren’t a bunch of Above and Beyonds.

That's bullsh-t, they can mark you above and beyond.

That being said if you score high then HR insists on your STI percentage being higher than your peers. I think the consensus in the company is that the STI and TDC funds this year were low considering the messaging on the company performance and inflation. If your manager did score you highly, they would have to pay you increased STI by taking it off your colleagues. They might have made a call that as you are new you are less likely to resign over a bonus than your peers.

I was the newbie in a department and I was told that the best I could get would be a 4 (which is really bad) simply because I was the newest. It wouldn’t matter how much I walked on water or what I did the best would be a 4 on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being out the door. This was in 2010-2014 when they transferred all of our jobs to Atlanta and I chose the layoff. So glad to be gone.

There isn’t a ban on rating newbies as Above and Beyond, I know that for certain. That said, I’ve heard about entire teams getting paid the same STI percentage of target this year (even the above and beyond’s), which really ki-ls the incentive to work hard.

New to AIG and already on this site??
Dude, time to start looking.

Are you in the US?

Unless you are high up you don't have a contract.

Technically AIG is under no legal obligation to fund the STI pool at all. They don't highlight that when you are hired but it is in the policy.

To be fair I've never seen that happen.isn't funded where all get 100 percent but always funded.

Many companies with a formal performance review structure have that policy on rating.

Comes where there is an expected forced distribution of people within each rating.

A person in a new role is expected to be learning. Might exceed expectations for their own development but exceeds is against everyone not even just your team. It is supposed to be the top 10 percent (or whatever) of all employees. Under this theory a lower rating also doesn't reflect badly if new to the role.

These models expect a certain percentage below expectations. Ideally this is all new people or people new to a role. Not because they are bad but because they are new.

Is an approach that makes sense in the theory of performance management or for a company.

Doesn't for people doing the job. No matter the spin, the rating feels wrong. Also puts managers in an impossible position to keep folks motivated with ratings that feel bad no matter the explanation.

Is definitely AIG but not just AIG.

AIG is good at misrepresenting when it comes to comp. From year to year, this is the type of stuff you’re going to hear when it comes to performance reviews and STI. They will sc--w you at every turn. The job market is still strong, get out while the market is good and before they leave you feeling demoralized.

Yes, it is fraud, misrepresentation. Welcome to AIG. Just check out some of their policies posted in another thread, that if you complete a year of employment, and then resign, you are not entitled to your STI/bonus, unless you work an additional 2 months the following year until the payment is in your bank account.