Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

I received a review that said I was doing great and then, outside of the actual review, was told that I was getting a not consistently meets rating because my boss' boss was told that there needed to be so many people with the not consistently meets rating. First time I have EVER gotten less than an excellent rating on my performance from Wells or any other company. I thus, had my bonus affected AND now, unless someone actually reads my review, it appears that I dont do my job well.
To top it off, there is company documentation that this stacked ranking is against company policy. I wonder how many others received the same...against company policy.

I filed an EEOC complaint against Wells Fargo once. WF responded to me that what they did not violate any internal policies, and that was all the WF group looked at. The people involved in addressing my complaint weren't even aware of what the law specifically states. I was told it didn't matter, because it wasn't violating internal policies. They let the clock run out on responding to the EEOC.

Stacked ranking works as intended, at first. Eventually, you end up with only good performers. When you start ranking truly good performers against each other, that's when they stop performing, because no matter how well or hard they work, they will never be rewarded for it.

Wouldn't those be problems regardless of stacked ranking?

Not really! If you had concrete measurable goal like deliver your project under budget and early you could rate fairly. If everyone delivered their projects on time and under budget under stack ranking somebody still needs to be a 2 and a 1 ratings. How is that fair when everyone met the goal. Stack ranking is about time and effort in front of the bosses not results.

We had stack ranking in branch banking under Tolstedt. Worked out great, didn’t it?

Some more insights into stack ranking.
Yes, General Electric (GE) did use stack ranking as a performance management practice for several years. However, in recent years, GE has moved away from this system and made significant changes to its performance management approach. This IMO has contributed to a great turnaround.

The stack ranking system at GE, known as "rank and yank," was a controversial practice that required managers to rank their employees from top to bottom based on performance. The bottom-ranked employees were often subject to negative consequences, such as lower bonuses, limited career advancement opportunities, or even termination. This approach received criticism for several reasons:

1. Subjectivity and Forced Distribution: Stack ranking is inherently subjective, as it requires managers to differentiate employees within a fixed distribution. This can lead to bias, inconsistent evaluations, and unfair treatment. It may force managers to label some employees as underperformers even if they are meeting expectations, simply because they need to fill a certain quota.

2. Undermining Collaboration and Teamwork: Stack ranking fosters a competitive environment among employees, where they are pitted against each other for limited rewards. This can undermine collaboration, teamwork, and the overall morale of the workforce. Employees may be less willing to share knowledge, support each other, or work in cross-functional teams, as they fear it could impact their individual rankings.

3. Counterproductive Effects on Employee Engagement: Stack ranking can create a culture of fear, where employees constantly worry about their relative rankings and job security. This focus on individual competition can be demotivating and lead to disengagement, reduced innovation, and a loss of trust between employees and management.

4. Limited Development and Growth Opportunities: In a stack ranking system, employees who fall in the lower ranks may face limited opportunities for career growth and development. This can result in a loss of talent and hinder the organization's ability to retain and attract high-performing employees.

Due to these and other criticisms, many organizations, including GE, have shifted away from stack ranking in favor of more collaborative, continuous feedback-oriented, and development-focused performance management approaches. The aim is to create a culture that encourages growth, recognizes individual strengths, and fosters teamwork and collaboration to drive overall organizational success.

@1ipp+1mZpELt4

Pursue litigation.

There are many of us who have had a similar experience whether it be the manager or the manager selected shady peers who provided slanderous and unproven feedback which has harmed careers and is now documented in our files.

It is beyond unacceptable of WF.

Stack ranking is subjective. Managers cherry pick who to go to to get "feedback" on their employees.

OP, is there a time limit/statute of limitations to file ? Curious.

My jealous, vindictive single-contributor-acting-as-manager manager added completely subjective things to my EOY review that weren't proven or provable. It didn't bring down my "score", but it was enough to "ding" me in the eyes of future managers if they read the review. CS doesn't understand that forced stack rank can also help unscrupulous managers edge out any potential competition or good replacement for their role by sidelining the good people. That means the SHIFTY people stay and keep the not so good performers under them who don't "threaten" their job as manager. Only seen about 1 in 20 honest, decent & good managers here.

The companies that lose have discrimination against specific groups. Like your own post shows difference in raises for women, or for people over 40. I don't believe Wells Fargo does that. Their only discrimination is against being American, and there is no law against firing Americans in order to replace them with jobs in a different country by a subsidiary. What they're doing is unethical and harms Americans, but legal.

No

I’ve been screwed! I got displaced after I told HR about a woman that was so angry. She was flipping tables! I was scared!

I got rehired, but I was put on hourly with no bonuses. I’ve been working 15 years without bonuses and hourly and been with the company for 27 years.

I’m only making $50k take home pay even after my husband died of cancer, they won’t give me a raise!

I have really good skills too. I’m doing SQL, coding and SAS and major ad-hoc reporting in Teradata.

Enron used stack ranking to pit employees against each other. Guess how that turned out.

🤷

I am all about suing this place!

F charlie for F cling us all over. What a POS!!!!

If any company can F up a practice which has “held up legally in the courts”, Wells Fargo can! Sales quotas are not illegal, but Wells F’d that up. Providing 401Ks to your employees is not illegal, but Wells F’d that up. Selling mortgages is not illegal, but Wells F’d that up. Interviewing prospective new employees is not illegal, but Wells even managed to F that up 😂.

I can't disagree with OP on any points.

But I think people overestimate how much CEOs/companies actually care about fines and lawsuits.

We like to think that they really care and are afraid of being sued (because it feels like a form of power balance instead of the company having all the power), but I'm skeptical that anyone cares that much about a fine or judgment.

If you have a case, definitely sue. Just because the company doesn't care doesn't mean that you shouldn't sue.

I just wouldn't count on lawsuit/fine fear at the top to improve working conditions at Wells (unfortunately).

Stacked ranking has been used for decades by numerous companies and corporations. It has also been successfully upheld in court cases. Not saying it is right, but it is done.

Great! Let’s take him/them down.

I wish someone would pull pay records and dig in to the data to prove discrepancies in equal pay for equal work issues. It is occurring. Shareholders are winning class action suits against Wells Fargo monthly. The bank doesn’t fly right until they get caught and are forced to change.

Wouldn't those be problems regardless of stacked ranking?