The ratings are BS. I think it is structured in a way that actually harms the company and innovation. You have multiple people/groups/business units working the same issues and not collaborating in order to achieve that differential rating. In reality encouraging and fostering collaboration would result in much better benefit to the company.
17 replies (most recent on top)
If you receive a “differential “ rating (a 1 or 2) then the company stresses how important it is and how these ratings will make a big difference in your career and compensation. If you receive a 3 as most people do, the company downplays the significance of the higher rating and reassures you that you’re doing a great job. If you receive a 4 and certainly if you get a 5 then you are toast and need to reconsider your future at COP.
The reality is that 1/2 of 18s get almost half of their salary in the form of RSUs. 100% of 19s are eligible to receive 52% in RSUs. The stock is on top of larger merit and enhanced VCIP. The differential ratings get you to these SGLs and the difference in compensation is life changing.
I enjoyed some nice numbers before I got parked in the 3's.
Then, when I brought bullying and discrimination to the company's attention, I was "not retaliated against" and received a "4" which they tried not to share with me.
Don't expect much from your twisted leaders.
At least we’ll find out how we did this year.
At the end of FEBRUARY.
Just in time for another round of head count adjustments.
Good luck all!
I just came from Exxon, it can be so so so much worse.
That progress you speak of moves at a glacial speed. I have been here since the split and that is the only change they have made. I wonder what job HR is spending their time doing if not benchmarking.
I don’t know what the “best” structure is, but there’s definitely been improvement during my tenure. While there are forced rankings, it’s in the 1-3 space and not forcing good middle of the road people into the 4-5 space. Exxon pulls that cr-p and they’re a mess, for some fun go read their layoff page. On the other side, I agree that the impact of employee feedback has been to make the process more bureaucratic - the how and now DEI. That’s the downside to asking the process to be more transparent, you now have to write a novel and don’t forget to use the thesaurus!
I subscribe to the just do a solid effort all the time. You don't have to a$$ kiss or play the political game. If you do this, I have found that differential rating finds me every 2-4 years out of that's how long it takes to recognize a hard worker who stays in their lane.
A differential rating isn’t worth the effort and drama. Do the minimum, get a meets expectations rating, and call it a day. You’ll be a much happier person with this mantra.
Best boat wins.
Don’t need a back door or water cooler. Plenty of hi-pots will gladly tell you via awesome they are and what great ratings they get. There’s really no secret to it.
And it is also a faulty premise that ratings are secretive. If you’re not getting differentials, how can you know what to model your behaviors after if we aren’t supposed to share our ratings with anyone? That’s how you know it’s a bad system bcz managers are embarrassed or know they’d be ‘found out’ if everyone knew who was getting the differentials. The only way we know is back door and water cooler talk
Also, last time people complained to much about the ratings they thought a good solution would be to add the How rating, and now a DEI goal as well. It is to help us focus on the purpose behind the goals
Don’t worry too much about ratings. Sure, you won’t get as many promotions and financial perks, but in the end, good ratings won’t save you from being let go for no good reason. Plenty of top rated individuals were cut loose over the years. Think that string of 1 and 2 ratings secures you a place at the table? Think again.
There has to be some type of system for recognizing exceptional performance and also not recognizing weak performance. The problem is this becomes a beauty contest rather than a recognition system. Then throw in biased favoritism resulting from the Hi-Pot system, management incompetence (recognizing and promoting brown nosers rather than those speaking truth) and a lack of a post-audit feedback system (leadership 101 searches to repeat excellence and not repeat poor performance, instead we recognize the best liars to get their budgets and projects approved) and VOILA we have a corrupt horrific rating system.
Years ago there was a big push for collaboration and integration. It became a mantra. Buttressed against the reality of an individual rating system, it quickly descended into parody. Why should everybody contribute blood, sweat, and tears, when by mandate, only one will stand out and the rest are judged to be average?
People are unhappy about this. Does HR perform best of class studies to understand what other companies do for ratings in O&G, tech, and other major industries?? Why don’t they conform with best-in-class companies. Surely a system that has been in place for minimum 20 years isn’t the best way to measure performance any longer. Especially given demographic and generational shifts.
Any HR folks on here able to commment?
It’s a popularity contest. The numbers are adjusted to fit the desired outcome. Thought you left middle school a long while ago, didn’t you? If you’re not one of the cool crowd, you’re nobody.