They should call it stank ranking, bc mgrs shove good performers into Needs Improvement (2) so they can give their brown-nosing favorites Exceeds (4).
12 replies (most recent on top)
A lot of managers rate their whole team 3’s so they don’t have to deal w who they want to rate higher/lower. This whole system is such BS. Rate people what they should be- sc--w some curve system!
In my experience, H1 people always ranks higher, guaranteed. If you ask for visible work to do, or request that you want to do better, you tend to be out of a job faster.
Stack ranking, another term for American replacement ranking.
I'm usually on the higher end of the stack ranking. However, I'm always a little nervous that they can't find that 1 or 2 to offset my 4 or 5. For instance, whenever the 1 or 2 people leave or get fired, then who's next to take the 1 or 2. Granted the 1 or 2 should perform or leave, but then now the 4-5s might get brought down just because the low performers left.
I have zero fear of stack ranking. Just means I get the highest rating and pay increase. I'm the guy on my team.
Of course there is recourse. You just have to have the ba--s to do what's right for yourself. I'm just as anti-HR as it gets, but if you have your ducks in a row there isn't anything they can do but rescind the bad rating. Again, you have to have a paper trail or know that your boss doesn't have a paper trail. Anyone that thinks they don't have recourse in any situation probably can't stand up for themselves regardless of the situation and gets walked on daily. Good luck to you.
The point is that there is no recourse when it is unjustified.
Middle level managers have to justify their existence by ruining your morale. They themselves add little to zero value. It is common knowledge that one the most effective ways of reducing staffing expenses and improving effectiveness and transparency in large organizations is to reduce layers of management.
Let's you back to the basics, Charlie.
for the majority of folks, your year end rating will be what you got on your mind year. there are those in the margins where it can go either way but 9/10 you'll get your mid year. as for those having gone through recent org changes, typically whoever your manager was at end of September will be proving the review, rating, and comp info in coordination with your new manager.
I've said this on several threads over the years and I'll say it again:
If you receive a bad review and you didn't know it was coming then there is a problem with either your manager or you. If you're being honest with yourself and you are a 3 or 4 on your own review and they give you a 1 or 2, they need to provide proof of what that issue was, why it didn't improve, when it was discussed in 1:1's, and so on. Your annual review should NEVER be a surprise. You should know what to expect. Don't accept a bad review unless they provide proof of what/why they are reducing your review for.
What concerns me is for those of us who know and told we are being moved to new teams (managers) with the Ops and Non Ops split in February. Easy target on our backs because we won’t be with the current manager and they know who they will be keeping for the longer term. So su-ks for performance rating AND bonus. And no I don’t buy that all managers will “do the right thing” because majority of us at WF are all in pure survival mode.
But will be delivered soon bu*t head.
Reviews were completed months ago. Troll.