Thread regarding Fiserv Inc. layoffs

Mike is been here almost a year and we are still talking about the past. What is Mike Lyon's philosophy on Performance Ratings? That is the only thing that matters now and what hasn't Jennifer Manchester or Robin Ording just clarified the companies current policy???

But Tony left with his golden parachute

I knew a guy that was told by his manager that someone on the team had to be rated meets most, so she picked him that year even though he actually met all expectations. He retired shortly after because obviously she wouldn't stick up for him.

"Tony Marino once told us on a manager's call "we don't do forced quota rankings and if anyone tells you to, come see me". The next day... HR: So we need to curve these rankings..."

I was on this call as well, and was forced to lower some of my employees rankings. I was never asked to go below Meets, but Exceeds was very limited, event more limited if you were at a Principal/Director level. If those still exist, I have been gone for over 3 years.

The problem with no forced ranking lies in the potential liabilities when someone is laid off. If you have five solid "meets" employees and you're told to boot one, who gets chosen? Regarding performance, there's nothing on paper that suggests there's any difference among the five. Choose wisely.

I'm not saying I like forced ranking. It doesn't motivate. It destroys teamwork. By its very definition, it likely obfuscates decent performance. It does the only thing about which the company is concerned - covers their rears when someone gets shown the door.

My experience having been a manager here for a couple of years is that if your team is less than 5 people they don't necessarily force the curve (especially if your manager pushes back) That being said, Ive also been told that Mike is also demoting managers back to individual contributors if they don't meet the min requirements for a team (at least 5 directs to start with)

@dw Don't expect to get any. Just a bunch of BS.

@as Where is this place? Name names. Not like that at Meta or Chase, to start.

@c9 The bell curve is real.

Tony Marino once told us on a manager's call "we don't do forced quota rankings and if anyone tells you to, come see me". The next day... HR: So we need to curve these rankings...

Uh...

Also to clarify, this was happening pre-Frank. I imagine Frank made it worse (like he made everything worse), but this wasn't something original to him.

The laggards need to go. This is a meritocratic company and giant babies who can’t help whining should be let go on an ASAP basis.
60 for 6 until stock goes to 200.

"We don't do stack rankings" - Frank (while he is actively doing stack rankings)

Yep and it's probably to cover their as--s. Managers and VP get huge bonuses so lower ratings mean less bonuses each year and probably find ways to kick out the competition for their jobs when the time comes. Honestly this is the worst company I have worked for in corporate

Because of this practice, I’m seeing talented people leave Fiserv for companies where their performance is evaluated fairly and promotions are earned on merit. As others have mentioned, this is one of the worst HR practices.. It drives away top performers while keeping those who simply go through the motions.

Generally true, but a good manager will advocate for your team members at the next level. There is a rollup and the goal is to have a standard distribution for your group. I can't say it is easy, but it can be done that no one in your unit has a poor rating. The manager needs to present a compelling case and be persistent.

if the manager fights too much, their rating gets lowered and they find someone who will play ball

If true that is the worst HR practice that has been found ineffective many years ago. It wouldn't surprise me given our so-called HR leader is a lawyer, who couldn't give a shi- about employees.

Make sure you rate yourself as walking on water with good solid information. I always did. Make them substantiate why they think differently. Any variance should have been discussed throughout the year. lol

rankings are used for layoffs, the lower ones are modeled into cost savings each year. rating don't relate to performance

At a certain org level, it is expected that there is a bell curve of ratings, not at the unit level. If the org isn't bell shaped (65% should be meets expectations), then the leader will ask lower managers to re-evaluate.
If your manager cannot justify a rating it will be lowered, however it is up to the manager to fight for it.
Some managers will cave and others won't. I know in my org, there were enough ratings along the bell to not require any adjustments.

standard practice in many companies

True

Very true

True