#performance

Can manager or director reduce/increase STI assuming that Dan said "100%% and level is "performing"

Once again Intel is mighty again and DELL wins big from this! The new XPS 14 2026 with Panther Lake are kicking the a-s of MacBooks with M5 in terms of performance and battery life. DELL forever!!

When are we suppose to enter goals for 2026? I do not see portal open yet.

Ask co pilot what GK’s target bonus is for this year.

Putting this out here now for those of us who try to survive another year. Expect that merit will continue to be extremely minimal, and the company will move to more of a bonus/LTI system.
When they pay larger merit, they have to keep up with those increases year over year regardless of profits. If I give you a $5000 raise, I am now committed to paying you at least that salary as long as you’re around. Now multiply that times thousands of employees.
A bonus however is one time. I’m only committed to that amount THIS year.
LTI is worse, I promise to pay if you stay for 3 years, but if I lay you off, I’m freed from that obligation.

So expect the company to continue to lean heavier on bonus and LTI (aka paying it out at 90-100%), versus seeing larger merit pools going forward.

Was anyone told that merit increases were not going to be given to 3's this year? Was told it was company wide. Is that true?

Year Net Income* ROCE**
2015 $16,150 7.9
2016 $7,840 3.9
2017 $19,710 9.0
2018 $20,840 9.2
2019 $14,340 6.5
2020 ($22,440) (9.3)
2021 $23,040 10.9
2022 $55,740 24.9
2023 $36,010 15.0
2024 $33,680 12.7
2025 $28,884 9.3

• Reported As Millions Of Dollars
  ** Rate of Return on Capital Employed

How's your raise and bonus?

I got a low rating. When my manager sends the review to me should I add employee comments? Once entered who reviews them? Thanks in advance!

5 - 22%
4 - 21%
3 - 20%

There’s basically no incentive to do anything other than the bare minimum.

BY Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Integrity, understood as a disposition to behave in prosocial, ethical, and principled ways rather than corrupt or self-serving ones, is among the strongest and most consistent predictors of job performance and leadership effectiveness. The reason is far from mysterious. Leadership, whatever its context, is a collective enterprise. No meaningful goal, from building empires to running companies, has ever been achieved alone.

Across history, not just in humans but also other animals, cooperation has depended less on raw power than on trust. Ancient trading societies flourished precisely because reputation constrained behavior: Merchants in Phoenician city-states, medieval guilds, and Silk Road networks relied on repeated interactions and informal enforcement mechanisms to ensure that partners honored their commitments. Those who cheated were excluded, not merely judged. Trust, in effect, functioned as an early mechanism for coordination and enforcement.

The same logic applies in modern organizations. Teams perform better when members believe that leaders will act fairly, keep promises, and avoid exploiting asymmetries of information or power, or are so focused on their personal gain that they have little concern in harming the group. In line, research shows that leaders perceived as lacking integrity struggle to attract talent, elicit discretionary effort, or sustain collaboration over time. Conversely, leaders known for ethical consistency benefit from faster coordination, lower monitoring costs, and greater willingness among others to take risks on their behalf.

Given a choice, people prefer to collaborate with those they trust not because they are naive, but because distrust is expensive. Working with unreliable or unethical partners increases the likelihood of failure, conflict, and reputational damage. In business, this may mean backing leaders who misrepresent performance or shift blame. In politics, it can mean empowering those who erode institutions for personal gain. In both cases, the costs are borne not only by the followers but by the system as a whole.

This is why chronic corruption is one of the most reliable markers of institutional breakdown. As documented year after year by Transparency International in its Corruption Perceptions Index, countries that score lowest on integrity and trust tend to share familiar pathologies: weak rule of law, politicized institutions, capital flight, and persistent underinvestment, generally caused by parasitic governments and destructive leadership. By contrast, countries that consistently rank at the top of integrity and trust measures benefit from stronger institutions, more predictable governance, and higher levels of social and economic cooperation. To be sure, these societies are not free of self-interest or ambition; rather, they have succeeded in aligning incentives so that ethical behavior is rewarded and corruption is costly, censoring selfish short-term individual gains in favor of collective long-term benefits.

Measuring integrity
So, how can we tell whether a person has integrity, or gauge someone’s moral reliability?

The question is especially consequential when applied to leaders, whose decisions shape the success, welfare, and future prospects of others. Fortunately, behavioral science offers several useful insights, even if it stops short of perfect certainty.

First, integrity is not directly observable. Unlike physical attributes such as height or hair color, it cannot be seen or measured at a glance. Instead, it is inferred or deducted from patterns of behavior, consistency over time, and alignment between words and deeds. Integrity is therefore an attribution rather than a trait we can observe directly, which makes assessment inherently probabilistic rather than definitive.

Second, short-term interactions are often misleading. Because appearing ethical brings clear benefits (trust, influence, reduced scrutiny, and access to resources) people are incentivized to signal integrity even when they lack it. This helps explain why superficially ethical environments can sometimes attract parasitic actors who exploit the goodwill and assumptions of others. In contrast, in persistently corrupt settings, distrust becomes the default, and even well-intentioned individuals are treated with suspicion. Context shapes both behavior and perception.

A parallel and increasingly robust line of evidence comes from research on the so-called dark traits: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Although conceptually distinct, these traits share a common core of low empathy, emotional coldness, and a tendency to instrumentalize others. From an integrity standpoint, this combination is toxic. Individuals high on these traits are less constrained by guilt or concern for others, more willing to bend or ignore rules, and more likely to justify unethical behavior as necessary, deserved, or clever rather than wrong.

Psychopathy is most directly linked to callousness and fearlessness, reducing sensitivity to punishment and moral emotion. Machiavellianism predicts strategic deception, cynicism about human motives, and a belief that ends justify means. Narcissism, especially in its more grandiose forms, adds entitlement and moral exceptionalism, the belief that normal rules apply to others but not to oneself.

Together, these traits reliably predict counterproductive work behaviors, ethical transgressions, and integrity failures, particularly in roles that confer power, discretion, and weak oversight.

Crucially, this is not because such individuals lack intelligence or self-control, but because their motivational architecture is misaligned with prosocial norms. Where integrity depends on empathy, respect for authority, and an internalized concern for collective outcomes, dark traits tilt decision-making toward self-interest, dominance, and short term gain, making them among the strongest dispositional red flags for integrity risk in organizational life.

Third, while integrity cannot be measured perfectly, it can be assessed meaningfully. Research shows that peer ratings are among the most reliable indicators, precisely because integrity is reputational: It reveals itself in how people behave when others depend on them. Longitudinal data, such as 360-degree feedback, is especially informative. Personality traits like conscientiousness, altruism, and self-control (including the capacity to self-edit) also predict ethical conduct, as does past behavior. Self-reports are often dismissed, but well-designed measures still differentiate reliably between individuals with higher and lower integrity. Track records matter, even if they do not render anyone immune to temptation. As Warren Buffett famously observed, reputation takes a lifetime to build and a moment to destroy.

Finally, the environment matters. Ethical failures are not only the result of “bad apples,” but also of “rotten barrels.” Weak governance, misaligned incentives, and tolerance for small transgressions can erode integrity even among otherwise decent individuals, while well-designed systems can reinforce ethical behavior by making misconduct costly and transparency unavoidable.

Sapping growth
Taken together, these points suggest that integrity is neither inscrutable nor guaranteed. Whether in governments, firms, or teams, integrity functions as an enabling condition for coordination and progress. When trust erodes, actors devote more effort to monitoring, hedging, and self-protection, leaving less energy for innovation or growth. In this sense, integrity is not merely a moral ideal, but a form of social infrastructure: largely invisible when it works, and painfully obvious when it does not.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is the chief science officer at Russell Reynolds Associates, a professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia University, co-founder of deepersignals.com, and an associate at Harvard’s Entrepreneurial Finance Lab

https://www.fastcompany.com/91490509/3-science-backed-ways-to-measure-integrity

I wanted to see what the global experience is with admin staff? In my local office, there’s an assistant that complains all the time about having to take cover multiple teams (a bit over a dozen people). On paper it looks like a lot but it’s often very low touch, even no touch for some.

She says she only had to take care of a few people a few years ago. Which seems crazy. Is she being dramatic and inefficient maybe? Or is low touch assistant work for a few people with doing expenses for a dozen people too much?

Throughout the year, I was consistently told that I was exceeding expectations and performing at a high level. My feedback conversations reflected strong performance and meaningful contributions to the team.

However, during my annual review, I received a rating of 3 and was informed that I would not be receiving a raise. This outcome did not align with the feedback I received throughout the year.

Additionally, compensation decisions were not determined by my direct supervisor, who has firsthand knowledge of my day-to-day performance. Instead, they were made by a VP who has only been with the team for a short period of time and has not had the opportunity to fully understand individual contributions.

I have also learned that colleagues who previously received ratings of 5 were given ratings of 2 this year and were subsequently written up, without prior warning that their performance was considered below expectations. All of these evaluation and compensation decisions were made by the same VP.

Congrats to all.

Looks like layoffs postponed for now.

He has done such a great job at Ford, he has been anointed into the BoD at McDonalds.

The guy is a "1" performer.

BILLIONS and BILLIONS of losses in the last few years with this EV bullsh-t and what? Here at Ford, its nothing but applause.

The consolidation of the offices to the hubs. ECS and future state. The loss of jurisdictional expertise from the regional offices to the hub and an SCP manual. You lost touch with what made you number 1- no customer cares about your metrics, they want confident knowledgeable guidance and you’re not giving that anymore, especially when management doesn’t even know the job and just focused on your idle time and how many cause of loss you closed. When you stop putting the customer first and worry about the things they never see or know, you lose touch with the actual mission. You cannot separate yourself by being like everyone else

Last year is my only point of reference, so I’m not sure what the norm is. Can anyone confirm?

I’m trying to recall if we received a Q4 % to goal email yet where that payout detail may have been shared but honestly can’t even remember the usual timing of
Those after quarter end.

My performance evaluation is incomplete by my manager. Could this mean I’m on the list for 2/19?

Just curious, honestly did anyone get a promo? Not much was disclosed on the process and frontline managers given no info. So did anyone actually get one and what criteria was there? Were they only given to people now in managerial roles?

Our agency continues to struggle to meet goals, including the minimum autos. How many months are we allowed to miss?

I'm a Manager and I have had to lay off top raters over low performers because the leader has a vision. I can tell you, ratings have some sway but ultimately no one is safe from the shoulder tap.

Keep your options open.

How is it working for you? Any repercussions?

My focus is now about my unachievable target! Sales isn’t about resolving Premier Page issues, customer self serve tickets not being addressed, accounts going on hold due to outstanding invoices. Dell always goes cheap, re-employ staff to free up Sales to Sell. Pretty fu---n simple!

Just curious. And, yes, I can look it up on my own but just wanted to prompt others into thinking. This is not good.

• Meta denies plans for new performance-based layoffs amid online speculation.
• Meta previously considered annual job cuts based on performance to manage low performers.
• Meta recently cut 10% of its Reality Labs division, affecting over 1,000 employees.

https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-says-no-performance-related-layoffs-planned-2026-2

What are the current VCP percentages by level? What did they change to?

Exceeded Expectations. 4% raise. 135% bonus.

Anyone know what percentage of people actually reach their ultimate potential CL? It is a vanishingly small number. Just another false promise.

“We base pay on labor market trends—not cost of living—so your compensation reflects your role’s true market value.”

Ok fine, but does anyone else see the idiocy of paying Stankey 26 million then? Based on what he’s done to once-proud AT&T he wouldn't get half that money at any other company in the world! Zero chance.

CVS Health CEO David Joyner received $17.8M in total 2024

Tilak Mandadi earned over $11.36 million in total compensation for 2024, driven largely by stock awards.

1% raise and only 5% of my bonus, even though I got a 'Leading' rating.

Just a 1% raise after the executives were boasting about how great of a year we had. They are probably thinking we should be grateful we got a raise at all. Were are all of the profits going??? Oh yeah to the executives who don’t actually do anything, while us individual contributors who do the real work get literal pennies compared to them

Can’t believe it, but expected. IA pulling some T& C out on the sellers Q4. That’s its guys take it way from the people who actually bring in the orders.

If you already got an invite for performance review; please share the date (can be range of date to be anonymous) and the department. It would help people from the same department to anticipate if they are on the chop-off list. I’ll start first.
ECS, no invite yet!

Should laid off employees expect a 100% bonus payout on 2/27 if they were terminated due job elimination with no mention of performance? I assume most who were laid off in January never had a performance review with their leader…. Severance docs only mention pro rated bonus for 2026 and is unclear about how bonus for 2025 will be paid out

Steve said that we achieved 100% on the goals for the Annual Incentive Plan and that it would be funded at 100%. and I quote: "it means there's enough money to pay the entire company 100%, but not everybody is going to get 100%. Some people will get less, some people will get more. We've been talking about establishing a high performance culture. I am pushing the management and leadership team to make sure we differentiate. So, if you're a top performer, you should expect more than 100%. That's what our management team has to do. We're not gonna just spread the funds out amongst the whole company. Were going to recognize the top performers."

Layoff, RTO, relocations, and rumors are what bring us here. I have a few minutes to share some of my insight moving from individual contributor to tech director and lastly AD. I hear chatter about who gets laid off and who doesn't. A lot of you think that layoffs purge the poor performers, and you're absolutely right. But, what makes a poor performer? Lets say I have 10 people on my team and all of them are great. I am told I have to reduce 2. If I happen to have an approved req for a backfill, I may be able to use that. If not, I have to go into the pool looking for poor performers. Here's a real example. Unfortunately, its one of many. You see, we go through this at least once a year, sometimes more.

10 people, 2 positions. Here were my poor performers.

First was an L2 single mom who was frequently swiping in closer to 9 most days. Great PO but, late. She was a solid performer and had an excellent rapport with her team and stakeholders. Next was an L1 QA analyst. He was a little hard of hearing so sometimes he played his music a little loud through his beats. People complained that they didn't like John's music tastes and that even when he wasn't listening to music, he still ignored them. Poor John's hearing loss and loud music didn't change the fact that he was outstanding at his job, worked 9+ every day and cared about his performance. Last person was an employee whose family lived offshore. He would take long vacations once or twice a year to go back to his homeland. One year, his vacation coincided with an outage that happened a couple weeks after a release. "John #2" was in India and was sleeping when we identified the problem. He did not respond to emails and didn't have cell service. We fixed the problem. No one blamed John 2, much. i was called to the mat and asked why I let him go so soon after the release. I said, A. we release every 2 weeks, and B. I can't control the timing of his religious holidays. He was a good developer though a little full of himself... and he smoked like a fiend. I hated it. Always smelled like cigs. Good performer though. Respected and worked constantly. Except when he was on vacay, that is.

Quiz time! Which one got the pink slip? It was only 1. I had one get out of jail free card to play. I had me a scapegoat that i pulled from another team to fill a backfill. We 'met' at a HH. He was an L2 who had been elevated. Lower salary. UOP bizzness degree. Nice enough but a bit too conversational after a couple beers. Very active social life. Work was a clear second, maybe third priority. He met all the criteria for a good worker who'd be easy to boot in a 10% rif. There's a poor performer. That was 1. Who do you suppose number 2 was? Answer. None of them. I didn't want to have HR probing my selections. Instead, I said that "Tom" was a great developer but he was abrasive at times and didn't like the Agile game. Tom was smart, experienced, and expensive. He exceeded expectations at every turn despite hating to have to attend the agile ceremonies.

Now, we are in 2026. RTO has happened. You can't use that any more. Countless layoffs have whittled down the poor performers. So, look around at your teams tomorrow. You are the pool. One or 2 of you are poor performers and you don't even know it. Its not the person you want it to be. It rarely is. Its the person who believes in AT&T or at least believes in the product. Its the person who wants to hang out or who enjoys HHs with coworkers. Its the guy who busted his hump to get a degree while supporting a family and its the new grad with a CS degree but no actual development experience. Its the PM who sits in the conference room capturing notes for a few minutes too long after the meeting ends. Yes, every one of you could get your walking papers due to the very things that you think make you indispensable. Sorry to be the one to inform you.

As for me, I out in my notice 1 month and a few days after the August "Memo". I refused to have to label an exceptional employee a poor performer. If you are concerned, just remember that your value is not reflected by the salary you earn but how you treat the people you work with.