More evidence of how corrupt the system is. Supervisors begging those out in NSI to take the PIP because they are needed and the company doesn’t want them to quit. Supervisors promising before PIP even starts that it will be passed. Clear evidence there were no issues to begin with and that the low ranking was just evidence of how broken the assessment system is.
17 replies (most recent on top)
I had a Clown for a project manager. That clown asked the stupidest question to me in front of the entire team. There was no way to answer the clown’s question without making him look stupid, so I just answered the question simply, and he really looked stupid in front of everyone. From that moment he made every effort to destroy my career. I am now no longer at EM and that stupid clown still has a job even though he cannot even ask a decent question.
EM has a history of keeping stupid clowns and getting rid of competent knowledgeable workers.
@jy now that is an accurate description. Funny how the hipos delude themselves into thinking it is a fair system and they deserve to be hipos. The lack of self awareness is stunning.
@OP Sometime they promise to get you get the job done and then say goodbyes just be careful .fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In the clown show example, the clown that takes credit for the humor of the group is the top clown. The system does is not set up to find the actual best clown, or the honestly NSI clown.
The very good clown that accidentally stepped on a Supervisor’s clown show is the one that gets NSI, even if his stepping on the Supervisor’s clown shoe received the most applause.
@ae Except it’s like the person doing the ranking is blindfolded and has to do the rankings by overhearing all the runners brag about how fast they ran. Oh, also the runners don’t know where the finish line is or how long the race is (guess it’s a panicked sprint?), and have never met any of the other runners who are all racing at different venues throughout the world. Also, some runners have to wear a heavy backpack and race in mud. And finally the person doing the ranking is friends with the top four “runners” every year somehow.
@f4 best analogy for the ranking system I’ve ever read. And how apropos to use clowns :-)
@ae The relative-performance explanation makes sense. I just think the race analogy gives the process too much credit. We aren't measuring a 100 meter dash with a stopwatch. There isn't an objective number at the finish line that tells us who won. It's more like a clown contest. Ten highly qualified clowns walk into the circus and somebody has to decide which clown was the funniest, most impactful, most visible, demonstrated the right behaviors, had the best assignments, impressed the right people, and contributed the most to the overall success of the circus. Congratulations. Somebody is still the bottom clown. Does that mean they're a terrible clown? No. It means that, according to a highly subjective comparison made by a particular group of people at a particular point in time, they were ranked below the other nine clowns. So if you're the bottom clown this year, please don't turn somebody else's subjective ranking into your identity. Pass the PIP if you can, learn whatever is useful from the experience, and consider taking your clown act to another venue if this circus is no longer fun.
@ev My supervisor kept saying the system was broken and that he didn’t agree with it. Zero ownership of the result.
@ak Okay, true ranking isn’t a cut-and-dry measurement like running speed. It’s based on a lot of subjective things: the perceived quality and visibility of your work, how well you’re liked, how well your supervisor advocates for you, how your supervisor is perceived, what opportunities you were given, and who happens to be on your team. A lot of that is outside your control. My point is simply that the assessment is relative. If your own supervisor is telling you it isn’t an absolute assessment of your ability and you can successfully get through the PIP, then I wouldn’t internalize NSI as some definitive statement that you su-k.
You may simply be a rock star standing in a room full of other rock stars. Or you may be on a particularly competitive team, a team full of HiPos, or even a team where relationships and cliques affect perceptions. If that environment keeps putting you at the bottom, maybe the answer is to move somewhere else where your strengths are better recognized. But don’t let a relative label become an absolute judgment about your ability. Those are two very different things.
I have seen years when Supervisors could pass people but have seen years where the layoff target did not allow passing.
I know a manger that guaranteed a least an E rating to their favorite when he was thinking about leaving. He probably deserved the E but that is shady AF I thought when I heard from him on why he stayed.
@ae Let’s assume your theory is flawless, sure. But do they really rank people on “relative” and “absolute” performance? Because from what I’ve seen, those words get thrown around a lot, and the actual ranking looks more like politics dressed up as metrics.
@ae There is a huge import difference. In a race the measurement of performance is objective. In the ExxonMobil process there is no objectivity. Also you say everyone is a great runner but in the ExxonMobil system we tell people they need improvement or need significant improvement not that they are better than 99% of the engineers in the world and to keep running. We make up BS feedback about things they need to work on. We build narratives to justify the outcome.
@ae you're missing the point. The 'Needs Significant Improvement' and associated PIP in most cases is a wholly incorrect, unjustified, and faulty designation. And the resulting "you'll pass the PIP" is just a symptom of this. Don't care if it's forced ranking or not, giving employees totally incorrect performance review outcomes is just plain wrong.
@OP What is so difficult to understand about relative performance? Imagine a team of ten Olympic-level runners. They race. One finishes first, and one finishes tenth. The runner who finishes tenth is the worst runner on that team, in that race. That does not make them a bad athlete. They are still faster than 99% of the world, and the team may absolutely want to keep them. That is relative performance. Absolute performance is different. Absolute performance asks whether the runner can meet the qualifying time at all. If they cannot, then they may need to be removed from the team entirely. So yes, a supervisor can rank someone last and still believe that person is valuable, needed, and fully capable of passing a PIP. There is no contradiction. The ranking says, “Nine teammates outran you.” It does not necessarily say, “You cannot run.”
You can dislike the race. You can criticize forced ranking. But finishing last among excellent performers does not mean the race was corrupt. Sometimes you are an excellent runner who simply got beaten by nine other excellent runners.
Accept the distinction.
Just a reminder that both Texas and New Mexico are one-party consent states for recording conversations.
We have individuals being told they did nothing wrong but still had to go into NSI because “someone” had to be there.
Strangely they are all over the age of 50.
Keep treating your employees like this and don’t be surprised with what you are left with in a few years.