Ratings and rankings are a joke. Depends on how much your manager likes you. I have been involved in them and it is dog eat dog.
There are only so many ratings allowed out there so they decide who they like the most.
When I did ratings and rankings I was honest about people and how they performed. The others brought in BS about the same person from years prior....
@1sov basically you just want to hand out gold stars. Why not Just lower everyone's salary so you can hand them back the same money in higher bonuses. The pay structure is what it is. They did their job, and they got paid. You should pay them yourself out of your pocket apparently since they did so good for you. They are all adults, and they are compensated for their work. Anyone who's working extra hard for a gold star on their rating has to be a bit naive, and I'm not advocating not doing your job properly, just not embarrassing yourself.
Thank god I work for non-management (union) I would be miserable in managment
I'm a supervisor in management and in my team's case it's now how much a supervisor "likes" you. For the most part, it's a merit based system. However, there are some major issues which I've voiced many times to senior Management (SVP) ...not that I'll expect they'll be fixed.
Primarily, there is a maximum percentage of employees that can be at "extraordinary impact" per year. Let's say it's 10%. Let's assume I have 20 people reporting to me. I would think that I could get at least 2 slots. However, the overall organizational number is set at the SVP level. So if my SVP has (for sake of argument) 1000 people, that org gets 100 slots for Extraordinary Impact.
But the slots are not distributed evenly. The SVP gets "first crack" at them. So if s/he has 10 direct reports, s/he "should" only get one of those, if you're going by raw numbers. But s/he will want to reward his/her direct reports, and will take, let's say, five of the slots. Then it works the way down. By the time it gets to my boss, who might have 100 people, s/he "should" get 10 slots total, but is only allocated six, because all those up the chain have taken their extra cut.
Now it gets s*itty. My boss basically lays it on the table with his direct reports (Let's say 5 of us). "Hey everyone, I have six slots, and there's five of you." And we're effectively told to pick between "us" getting a chance at a higher slot, or our teams. I've literally sat with my boss just before A&D and was told that I had an Extraordinary Impact (it was called something different at the time) and therefore there wasn't any left to allocate to my team.
That really s---ed because I had two people who had really stepped up to the plate and outperformed that year. Both absolutely deserved the highest rating, but I effectively would have had to lie and say they just "met expectations." I told my boss I couldn't in good conscience take the only slot, and I gave it up for one of my DRs. It was noted in the comments of my A&D that year, but of course that means absolutely nothing.
I really don't get that system. I've said repeatedly, I don't care how much BSMA and IPI money I have to give. I'll work with exactly the bucket I'm given. I just don't want to be forced into an artificial distribution on the team's ratings. Of course I've been saying that for 8+ years now. And HR keeps jacking around and tweaking percentages.
Not only that, but when it comes time for pay treatment, the software in eCorp does it all now. Eight years ago, if I had to give someone a lower rating than they deserved, I could at least tweak the IPI and BSMA so that they were right up there with a peer who happened to get a better rating out of sheer luck. Not anymore. Now it's a game of "winner take all." My top person might get $10,000 in IPI and the next in line, who performed at 99% of the level, gets little to nothing. Some organizations might let supervisors tweak, but I literally have no control. My boss actually punches in the ratings and I don't even have access to the editable fields. I see what is allocated and have to accept it.
It's so demoralizing not just for team members who outperform, but for supervisors who literally have no control over how they reward their teams. I don't know why they can't let managers manage.
They force rank you against your peers in your immediate work group and other related work groups under the same director. This is a TERRIBLE way to evaluate people and causes a dog eat dog mentality and kills team work
AT&T follows the Jack Welch school of thought on this. Seems to have worked great for the corporate culture at GE... that is a company thriving with innovation and new ideas!
I was told last week that the ranking system was within my own group and within my own management level (L1, L2, etc.). So I guess within each level of management within the group they are pitted against one another by rank, but since management seems incapable or unwilling to actually coach its people professionally how does one better themselves? Rhetorical.
Ratings completely depend on the competence of your manager and the relationship you have with him/her.
An incompetent manager/director/AVP/VP which is overwhelmingly the NORM in this company is the current malignant cancer that has become terminal.
Top talent continues to leave and the company's answer is to increase outsourcing of key initiatives.
Much more emphasis needs to be placed on vetting managers since a bad one can have really detrimental effects on the most important employees.
So ratings are not based on performance? Did you by chance not get the rating you felt you deserved and thus feel the need to blast the ratings system as tainted? I agree that preferential treatment does exist, but that's not exclusive to AT&T by any means. If you don't like your performance rating, look at ways to boost your value and profile.
From what I’ve heard, A lot of managers in the Southwest market are using it to intimidate people.
As a manager I say they are legit in my experience. I grade based off the scale they provide, there isn’t really a lot of wiggle room.