#performancemanagement

Lee Raymond’s Famous Quotes on Employee Performance at ExxonMobil

Lee Raymond, CEO of ExxonMobil from 1999 to 2005, was known for his strong emphasis on merit-based systems, hard work, and the role of competition in driving performance. While he did not publish a single “employee performance” manifesto, several of his public statements reflect his philosophy on how people should be rewarded and motivated in business.

Key quotes related to performance and merit:

“The market system requires that people be committed and willing to work hard. Inherent with that is what I call a merit system, which I think gives people the greatest opportunity.”

This statement underscores his belief that performance should be tied to effort and results, with merit being the primary driver of advancement and rewards.

“The main professional responsibility of a person in business is business. He or she must be successful in economic terms, but always within an ethical framework.”

Raymond stressed that business success—measured by performance and profitability—is the core duty, with ethics as a guiding constraint weheartquotes.com.

“It is important to remember that all business has an impact on the lives of real people.”
This reflects his view that performance should be evaluated not just on numbers, but also on its tangible effects on people and communities weheartquotes.com.

“Ethical conduct is something that becomes inherent in an organization over a long period of time.”

While not directly about performance metrics, this implies that a culture of integrity supports sustainable, high-performing organizations weheartquotes.com.

Overall philosophy:

Raymond’s approach to employee performance was rooted in a meritocratic, results-oriented mindset. He believed that hard work, competition, and measurable success were the keys to both personal advancement and organizational success, while maintaining ethical standards as a foundation.

If you need a concise summary for a presentation or discussion, you could frame it as:

“At ExxonMobil, we reward those who are committed, willing to work hard, and deliver results—within an ethical framework. Merit, not favoritism, should be the standard for performance.”

My site is pushing hard on metrics for client facing phone roles in brokerage. They are putting any below the national average on key metrics like CPH on an “unofficial” PIP. So, lots of people getting put on a PIP.

I’m hearing from other site leaders this is a strategy to push reps up or out, documenting everything and focusing more on tenured reps.

Anyone else affected by this or seen this play out before?

I am put on a PIP. The second line manager is according to the HR message the evaluator. First line manager is supposed to support.
First line manager creates hard to achieves goals.
The normal thing would be that the second line manager gets his own opinion. However 1st says he is in charge and I have not directly reached out to 2nd line.

How others have experienced it.

I have been told by my manager that we'll have another round and it will be quick. Notifications will be sent out first half of July.

I have not been here at Intel for long. Are new hires usually targeted in such CPMs?

So now, instead of mid years, we can all expect two required check-in meetings both to occur in june and july.

No feedback is solicited from the employee for this, and your manager can only rate you as 'meets' or 'does not meet.' There will be a dashboard about how you are trending based on no metrics available for the general population to see.

In the stacked ranking world that we all still live in they have removed exceeds and consistently exceeds because those don't exist anymore. As for consistently does not meet, you're just sh--e out of luck and fired. Instead you either fail, or you're acceptable.

No path to improvement, no mention of coaching or development. Just a very easy way to get rid of people not liked. It does not help. The article is written like sh--e and probably using m dash prompts because its incoherent, just like me. Fu-k you, WF.

There's growing chatter about people being cut due to less token usage.

If you weren't heavily using your copilot, it's being seen as "you're not growing" and "adapting" to new technology.

To me it's seems mo--nic,
It's another metric of punishing people who are efficient while people who used dev assist for simply changing a label on UI are being rewarded.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison: "Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on". It seems SAP is going in the same direction.

Our uptime on MS Teams and meeting time is already tracked. Management has also started to track browsing behavior using WalkMe which is now installed on all SAP computers. An HR colleague told me that they also tracking how often we come to office and work from home. And HR is discussing with the Betriebsrat how to connect these with Performance Management. And they are planning to trial AI cameras at some offices that will show how much time different colleagues spend in meetings and on their computer and lunch. All of this "surveillance" was included in new SAP policy updates.

Truth be told, I don't like this at all. The idea that I might get less appraisal and bonus because I had more wfh days or less Teams meetings than colleagues is appalling. A lot of work and meetings we still do are offline and that cannot be captured by these AI cameras so well. All of this seems so dystopian but several tech companies are copying Oracle and want this now.

For those of you in IT&V who have been ranked and yanked, what was your experience? Any signs ahead of time? Particular day of the week?

so have they officially eliminated opps for contribution statements and feedback from peers (things that supposedly used to mean a lot). any office notice of the change in performance management or is this a big steamroll?

Has anyone ever seen/have had experience with termination due to performance outside the annual PA process, i.e. not talking about safety or ethics violations kind of events

Coworker was upset that her boss was escalating an informal warning she received last month to a formal warning. I asked her if that’s a PIP and she said she was told that there are no PIP’s. Is this true? Is she sc--wed? She said her manager told her to meet with her more frequently to discuss anything. She said manager seems to be supportive of legitimately helping and actually wanted her to take over some work from another coworker.

Seems to me that this may be their due diligence to letting her go, but why have her take over more work if they want to let her go?

My manager, who can't stand me for some reason, has been working overtime to find faults with my work, so I'm guessing there's a PIP in my future. In my last company, PIP meant you might as well leave right away. Is it the same here? Should I start looking for something else right away?

I was just informed that it’s being recommended that I be placed on a coaching plan. I wanted to better understand the expectations and implications of this process. Specifically, should I view this as developmental support, or does failure to meet the outlined metrics potentially put my employment at risk?

Meta's problems cant be solved by current leadership. Its time for Priscilla Chan to step down as CEO.

Most of us hold meta stock either directly or indirectly. This stock will go the way of cisco, ebay, yahoo if changes are not made and soon!

Nepotism has largely captured large swath of the company. Performance reviews no longer mater in those orgs. pip's are unheard of especially If you share the same ethnicity as your manager - you are often safer than safe. You enjoy large refreshes, fast easy promotions and high performance ratings. In this org, credit often belongs to someone else that cant speak your mother language.

For those not in the protected class. Wondering why they were let go despite exceeded expectations rating. You know why! Do you joke in the same language at lunch with your metamates ? This probably always felt off. You will never be in their tribe. You will never be one of them. Your manager can put you on pip and not think twice. Because you just don't feel like a team player -- because you can't joke with them at lunch.

Innovation is largely dead at meta. the company has been captured by a protected class due to nepotism of low performers that will never ever be pip'd. They are bleeding the company dry both of treasure and IP to give to mother country. Just simply running out the clock waiting for their green card in hopes the latter comes first.

Credit:

https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/ex-manager-sues-capital-one-alleges-forced-ranking-drove-layoff-pick/576317

UNITED STATES

Employment law
Ex-manager sues Capital One, alleges "forced ranking" drove layoff pick
Cybersecurity manager claims calibration sessions, not performance, decided who lost their job

Ex-manager sues Capital One, alleges "forced ranking" drove layoff pick
By Tez Romero
22 May 2026
Share
facebook sharing buttontwitter sharing buttonlinkedin sharing button
A 56-year-old Black cybersecurity manager is suing Capital One, claiming a hidden "forced ranking" system pushed him out under the cover of a layoff.

That is the central claim in Hickman v. Capital One Financial Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-00450 (E.D. Va.), filed May 21, 2026, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. John Hickman, who spent 12 years at the bank and finished his career as a Manager, Cyber Technical on Capital One's "Watch Tower" cybersecurity team, says his October 2023 termination had less to do with performance than with race and age.

For HR leaders, the filing reads like a tour through the pressure points of modern performance management: calibration sessions, coaching plans, mid-year reviews, and reduction-in-force selection criteria — all of them, Hickman alleges, bent toward a predetermined outcome.

Hickman says he received "Strong Performance" ratings on every mid-year and end-of-year review from his end-of-year 2019 evaluation through 2022, with no documented concerns and no change in duties. Then, at a February 2, 2023 meeting, he was told his 2022 year-end rating was "Inconsistent." The complaint says the written feedback was largely positive but ended with a line that he "did not exhibit manager-level strengths relative to his peers."

That phrasing, the filing argues, gives away the game. Hickman alleges the downgrade was the product of Capital One's "forced ranking" — what the bank internally calls "calibration" and "distribution" — under which, he claims, at least 15% of employees must land at "Inconsistent" or "Below Strong" regardless of actual performance. He also points to the company's own guidance describing calibrations as "a time for leaders to demonstrate [Capital One's] commitment to Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging," language he says is at odds with what happened to him.

The coaching plan that followed, according to the filing, was delayed, packed with nearly two dozen vague deliverables, and at one point flagged "Communication" as a problem area — even though his year-end review had rated his communication "Strong." Hickman says he met every expectation by late May 2023. Instead of the policy-required outcome notice, he was told on July 24, 2023 that he had been selected for a reduction in force effective October 1, 2023. The complaint also alleges that Capital One quietly withheld an unfavorable mid-year review to make him RIF-eligible, and that his manager was instructed by Associate Relations not to deliver mid-year reviews to anyone tapped for the cuts.

The age numbers, drawn from what the filing says is Capital One's own OWBPA disclosure, are the part HR readers will likely linger on. Within the Manager, Cyber Technical population considered, 14.3% of employees 50 and older were selected, compared with 7% of those under 40. Across all roles considered, the rates were 4.8% (50+), 5.8% (40+), and 2.8% (under 40). The decisional unit, Hickman adds, was limited to employees hired before January 1, 2022 — a cutoff he says skewed older.

Hickman, who earned $175,263 plus a bonus opportunity of up to $24,000, is seeking back pay, compensatory, liquidated, and punitive damages, and has demanded a jury trial.

The allegations have not been tested in court. Capital One has not yet filed a response, and no judge has ruled on any of the claims.

LATEST NEWS
Ca--abis ban for flight crew: when workplace safety overrides legal rights
Supreme Court hands employers a costly loss on multiemployer pension withdrawal liability
First Circuit revives political discrimination case after lower court overreach

Free newsletter
Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up-to-date with the world of HR. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from HRD America.
Enter your Email address here

LATEST NEWS
Ca--abis ban for flight crew: when workplace safety overrides legal rights
Ca--abis ban for flight crew: when workplace safety overrides legal rights
Supreme Court hands employers a costly loss on multiemployer pension withdrawal liability
Supreme Court hands employers a costly loss on multiemployer pension withdrawal liability
First Circuit revives political discrimination case after lower court overreach
First Circuit revives political discrimination case after lower court overreach

Free newsletter
Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up-to-date with the world of HR. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from HRD America.
Enter your Email address here

Companies
People
Glossary
Authors
Newsletter
Consent Preferences
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Terms & Conditions
About us
Contact us
Sitemap
RSS
HRD America Twitter
Copyright © 2026 KM Business Information US, Inc

For code contributors, there’s metrics involved now. Even within tiers of needs improvement, meets, or exceeds, they have top, middle, and low rankings. Basically tracking commits from forked branches of mainstream repos. I’m sure they used this as part of the layoff decisions.

I really value being managed to modern seller metrics, it gives me a clear sense of accomplishment and keeps me motivated. The structured performance coaching plans also make me feel invested in and supported as a seller, which ultimately drives me to perform at a higher level.

TCS has instructed managers to classify 5% of employees in the lowest performance category. This directive applies to the latest appraisal cycle. The move has generated concerns about potential new layoffs. This follows a previous retrenchment of approximately 2% of its workforce. The company had previously planned to let go of 12,200 employees in fiscal year 2026.

https://www.ndtvprofit.com/business/tcs-asks-managers-to-put-5-staff-in-band-d-stoking-fears-of-fresh-layoffs-report-11512010

TRend at Bnym, and it’s not subtle.
More and more employees are being “RIF’d” under the disguise of performance issues — even when their track record is spotless. Let’s call it what it is: ageism and salary targeting.Batman and Robin don’t want to admit they’re cutting older, higher‑paid workers, so they hide behind manipulated evaluations and vague buzzwords like “not agile enough,” “not aligned with culture,” or “needs more energy.” It’s a cost‑cutting strategy dressed up as performance management.
This isn’t about merit.
It’s about money, age, and who they think they can push out quietly.
I should have fought your bullsh-t but didn't. I hope others do and this POS company gets what they deserve.

Word is a lot of employees are getting surprise off track reviews for Q1. Any truth?

I heard some people will always have ratings above VG.
Is it the same as being hipo, or just protected (whatever that means)?
Does that change often? What does one need to do in order to be in that pool?

Why the fluff is the active use of AI even a parameter for the feedback we need to give people? Eliza is actual garbage and they’re really force feeding us this so they can layoff the next group that doesn’t use it. Stay woke

New direct labor ZERO OT policy is an operational disaster waiting to happen. It wasn’t built on output data or bottleneck reviews, yet site leaders are threatened with performance mgmt if deliveries slip. Requiring personal approval from unresponsive executives for every labor exception isn’t management- it’s creating a bottleneck in itself.

KY TN CA BON reports filed. We have to make sure these lousy incompetent employees are held accountable for their actions.

For at least a decade now US Bank has been in need of actual pro-disciplinary policies. Current HR policies are enabling their retention of bad employees. Evidence and documentation no longer hold any value when attempting to discipline and or terminate bad employees. If the managing committee or higher-ups in human resources are reading this, people leaders in this corporation need better support from human resources when it comes to dealing with employees who are clearly taken advantage of company and federal policies. I understand this company wants to be lean. Let us use the tools that we have get rid of the dead weight.

Is there any truth to the rumor that people who received inconsistent performance rating last year due to not following in-office adherence will be laid off? I am on a very small team and I believe I am the only one on my team who got an IP so I’m freaking out. My role is a grade level 3 phone role.

• I posted this as a response, but figured it would be more useful to some if it was a standalone thread. *

  Come one, everybody! Don't be so gullible.

  CK didn't say there wouldn't be layoffs in our recent all-hands call, he just said they aren't focusing on that right now. It's an incredibly careful response the comms team has prepared ahead of time for the topic.

• What does 'focus on that right now' even mean? Focus on it later (this month? next month?) He might focus on them next week if the market reacts badly to his strategy?
  P23 and P24 were VERY expensive once you calculate out the VERP and severance packages of thousands of senior skilled colleagues with decades of time at the company. They'll want to find a cheaper approach to 'brushing their teeth' going forward. (Clue: "Our new Performance Management" where we overload you with work, give you impossible targets to hit, then later on use missing them as the reason to fire you for performance reasons with no payout).

• After the morale cratering debale that was how they handled P23 and P24, they'll want a quieter approach to future layoffs. They don't even have to tell you. Just cut a team of 15 here, 25, there, 55 here, 30 there... no need to announce it, and if anyone finds out use the bogus 'location strategy' explanation (you know, the BS one where a team of 30 can get cut because that office is not in their strategy, yet for other colleagues in that same location all is fine).

• The next layoffs will be cheaper and done as sneakily as possible - manufactured performance problems for expensive workers followed by unattainable PIPs, and voila.
  Let's not be gullible. "not focusing on that right now" absolutely DOESN'T mean there will be no layoffs in executive speak, just like "there aren't any plans currently" or "we want to keep our best people". They're empty non-answer phrases that give nothing away.

SAP couldn't give 2 ships about you as a person. Do what's best for you. If that means stay and try to put up with the political drama and backstabbing, good for you - best of luck to you. But if not, don't be blindsided. Tidy up that CV and start paying attention to what's out there. I certainly will be.

Looking for honest input from folks who’ve been through this.

I recently moved into a new individual contributor (IC) role. The onboarding/training has been very limited, and I’m still working to understand expectations and what “good” looks like.

A few complicating factors:

The scope of the role turned out to be significantly broader than expected (wasn’t fully visible upfront).
Deliverables and success criteria are somewhat ambiguous.
My current manager is still getting up to speed on the role as well.

Given that I already passed this year’s ranking and landed above NSI:

How quickly can someone realistically be put on a PIP after moving into a new IC role?
Is there typically a ramp-up period in situations like this, or can it happen fairly quickly if performance isn’t there?
In practice, how much do unclear scope / limited training factor into these decisions?

ExxonMobil’s MLRP is a performance‑ranking system that forces a fixed percentage of employees into the lowest category (“NSI”), often triggering PIP or separation options. It functions as a structured mechanism for performance management but has been widely criticized for effectively enabling layoffs under the guise of evaluation.

What the MLRP System Is
ExxonMobil’s Management and Leadership Review Process (MLRP) is an annual performance‑ranking system that categorizes employees into tiers. A key feature is the mandatory minimum percentage of employees placed into the lowest tier, Needs Significant Improvement (NSI). In 2020, ExxonMobil increased the required NSI share from 3% to 8%, expanding the number of employees exposed to performance‑based consequences.

Employees placed in NSI may be:

Forced to resign,

Placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), or

Given a Performance Improvement Leave (PIL)—a 3‑month paid separation option with benefits and outplacement services.

How the System Works in Practice

1. Forced distribution
   Managers must rank employees relative to peers, ensuring a fixed percentage fall into NSI. This is not purely performance‑driven; it is quota‑driven. Employees report that even strong performers can be pushed into NSI to meet the quota.

2. Consequences for NSI employees
   According to internal details shared by employees:

All NSI employees are subject to PIP or PIL.

Employees 40+ years old get 21 days to decide between PIP or PIL; those under 40 get 7 days.

All PIP/PIL programs must begin by September 1, with an off‑payroll date of December 1 for PIL.

1. Impact on newer employees
   Employees with less than two years at the company who fall into NSI are often asked to leave immediately.

Why the System Is Controversial
Employees and analysts argue that MLRP functions as a layoff mechanism, especially during downturns, despite ExxonMobil publicly stating it does not use the system to reduce headcount.

Reported concerns include:

Opaque criteria and limited feedback before being ranked low.

Morale damage, as employees feel they must “play the game” rather than focus on meaningful work.

Disproportionate impact on older or higher‑cost employees, aligning with broader cost‑cutting and offshoring strategies.

Summary Table
Aspect What It Means
Purpose Annual performance ranking and talent management
Key Feature Mandatory % of employees placed in NSI (raised to 8%)
Outcomes for NSI PIP, PIL, or forced resignation
Employee Concerns Quota‑driven cuts, morale issues, perceived covert layoffs
Company Position Claims system is for performance improvement, not layoffs

If you want, I can also break down PIP vs. PIL, explain how to navigate the system, or compare MLRP to other oil‑industry ranking systems.

Doing CAPs to manage people out and avoid paying severance has been happening a lot for at least a couple of years.

We are hearing about it more because it works and they are doing it more. The company saves money by pushing out long-term, expensive employees, especially those seen as too vocal, ethical, or outside the in-crowd.

Expect more of this. Most people do not have the money, time, or stability to fight it legally, and many assume it cannot happen to them until it does.

The Executive Board, Supervisory Board, Group Executives, L1, L2, etc. will never ever allow a VERP in the US. The only places where they allow that are Germany and France and only because they are forced to by the strong worker protections. However, they already found a workaround with the new performance management system. Now they will lay off while giving the least possible severance they legally can. These people believe that SAP's money belongs to them so they try to maximize their own bonuses by cutting down on salary budgets and benefits for employees.

An on point post by @ag+1kpxsdtzm.

PIP isn't about improvement. Performance improvement plans aren't for helping you. They're either to save money or get revenge. That's all. If you are on PIP, don't expect to still be employed once it's done.

Why the WAEM survey is done immediately after the performance harassment cycle , when people are already dealing with the stress of ratings and calibration. Each year, management highlights a few focus areas, but after the results are announced, those topics rarely surface again in team discussions. Given the current cost‑cuttings activities why this one continues? Just don't do it and save money

I remember when I first joined the company nearly 20 years ago and for many years after my supervisors were very particular about the PDS format as if it made a difference. Be sure to put your biggest impact items first, use bullets, and other such nonsense. As if any of that would make a difference in the assessment meeting. It was all just a decoy to distract from the fact that nothing on the PDS really matters and it isn’t worth spending time and effort on because the whole assessment process is a joke.

I’m about to get put on a “corrective action plan” over my AI sentiment score. Does anyone know what that even means? I don’t see anything on the Schweb about it. My accounts seem to like me a lot so getting put on a PIP over the AI giving me a bad score is really leaving me in a state of confusion

Well, it's almost that time again.... Seems that more folks are on the bench than ever. With the recent departs of the wh-z-bank_no_bang_CAP_cant_hit_numbers crew (they were forced out cause they couldn't hit numbers Y/Y endlessly nor optimize TEAMMATE resource stats) seems that the list making time has come once again.

Best option from the CFO_MOUSE_MODE clown is to: reduce expenses, lay people off and coach Britanucus_Nothingness into how to tell the street that things are really on the up and up when in reality it is all about cutting costs to hit a number.

Well since the market analysts really have lowered expectations, like really lowered the price target the only thing left to do it is to back into a number then divide by the average headcount cost to figure out how many people to cut. All in hopes and aspiration that they will appease investors (of which there are a lot less these days). Hey, let's start with all those expensive CAP_CLOWNS that were a bunch of talk, ruined even more the woke_A$$ culture and took this company to town, like over and over again. Someone has to make room for the washed up Accenture dudes waiting in the wings to be summoned to Chandler for a DREAMY_DREAM_DREAM_JOB with some of the deserts best and brightest.

Also maybe take out Kane and SolyentGreen to save some $$$$ as well, since neither of them amount to much.

What does the class think of all that? TEAM TEAM TEAM team?

ARR that STAT!

Is this a sign they're ramping up attrition, or am I just seeing isolated cases?

I just have copilot recycle my PDS write up from the prior year. It doesn’t matter what you put down. The assessment meeting outcome is already determined and won’t change based on what you write.

I have not seen a post about the new productivity tracker going on. The first meet had most all principle engineers up and worried as they were told last year to start using AI, create tickets and push releases. After 4 months, they are most categorized as low value to the company. Only few senior engineers had records of commits and massive of features pushed to production.

It's just a say do process. Say we are doing this, assign it to a person, assign to a secondary, do what the ticket says, push the code and close, and repeat.

I am not surprised those principle engineers can even write down what they're going to do or want to do

SAP has been keeping a close eye on how Joule and AI agents are being used within the company. They also track the time employees spend and the links they click on SAP product pages. Layoffs are on the horizon, and they’ll be viewed positively if they demonstrate AI efficiency. It’s easier for the executive board and HR to justify cutting 10% of the workforce by claiming that Joule has made us more efficient. This narrative is the best SAP can present at Sapphire. To enhance this story, Sapphire's theme revolves around two main points. First, we have a wealth of data on employee performance, which is stored in a global repository for decision-making. Performance Management majes it easier of course. Second, AI can analyze raw data to generate insights and recommendations that boost operational efficiency. Although these algorithms are complex, AI agents simplify resource management for 'managers' because of their conversational skills. Now, here’s the kicker: SAP has improved efficiency by reducing its workforce by 10%. That’s a significant win for the Sapphire narrative. In fact, over the past few months, SAP has been promoting SuccessFactors AI and HR-related application AI, with management constantly focusing on operational efficiency.

So why is there skepticism about layoffs? Our executive board has openly stated their desire for layoffs and aims to make the transition tough for employees. The funds for executive bonuses and share buybacks aren’t coming from customers, so they have to come from the workforce. Since customers aren’t buying into the narrative, SAP needs to provide the proof using substantial layoffs. That is the only way the share price will go up and some gullible customers will help improve SAP's cloud backlog.