Yay!
20 replies (most recent on top)
@dd people manager??
@gp You gotta remember you're only ever going to hear one side of the story. The person was "blindsided" by the rating, because that's what will get you sympathy. Not, "I had plenty of conversations about it but chose to ignore the warnings."
@ef
"I find it hard to believe there's all these exceptional employees, who just happen to only ever be meets, and "out of the blue" they fall to IM. Does it happen? Yes. But it also happens that some people legitimately decline and deserve the rating."
Fair enough. But more often than not, its the former that is the problem here and that the mandate to bucket people into exceeds, meets, IM, etc. is real whether one believes it or not. Coupled with that is the inability to dispute whatever that manager puts in that rating and review.
The reasons for decline in individuals can be identified and if the manager acts like a manager and not just a facilitator, (like most are), only then you can course correct. People check out when you have constant new folks rotating in, blowing smoke, ignoring team involvement, everything is high priority (which often it really isn't) changing things for the sake of change, faux transparency that doesn't make any sense and then leaving does not invoke any sort of confidence in leadership and that is why most check out. They feel ignored. Then on top of that abolish most team building programs and recognition within the bank and what do you expect. Add to that the threat of layoff, a percentage point in merit increase and bonus (if you get it) yearly and no clear career path.
There is no connection to the cause.
It's a factor, but I've seen so many decisions that cost the company more money that the only conclusion I can draw is that the elimination of the domestic workforce is the primary objective. Everything else is secondary or worse. Downsizing good people and paying 2-3x to get the same service from an approved contractor, for example. Happens all the time. Not to mention the complete waste of money that is RTO. It is definitely costing more than it's saving, and that's been true since very early in the RTO process. Once the noncompliant were gone, dumping $ into the buildings was a complete waste.
@ef get back to work, Charlie!!
@d1..cd ..exactly! Happened to me. I missed the lottery, lost bonus and got booted following year.
I got meets at mid year
im at eoy
@d1 Why is it so hard to believe that people can't drop from meets to IM? It's no different to a student having a C at mid-terms and falls to a D after finals because their performance drops off. Had you said exceeds/consistently exceeds, there would be a case. I find it hard to believe there's all these exceptional employees, who just happen to only ever be meets, and "out of the blue" they fall to IM. Does it happen? Yes. But it also happens that some people legitimately decline and deserve the rating. Seen it myself. Someone checks out and doesn't care any more. It doesn't matter if they had decades of Meets if they are no longer meeting.
with all the org flattening they have done there isn't enough time for the remaining managers to do them.
Spoke with a people manager in Control space today asked if this was true. She said Mid year not going away. What was added was a required quarterly meeting that managers must do with their directs. Managers have option to update workday on their direct quarterly now. Kind of a bummer if you have a bad manager.
@d1 This is exactly what happened to me. Over 30 years, never an issue, lots of praise, awards, blah blah. Blindsided. FWF They will all pay in the end, karma is real.
@cd this actually makes a lot of sense. In my group there were several cases where an employee was rated Meets at mid year, just to get blindsided 3 months later with an IM rating at year end. Nothing changed with the employees performance in any of these cases- it was a pure and simple GOTCHA penalty to hit the bell curve %
This was all a direct result of the stack ranking stupidity AND headhunting for more IM’s when our CAO didn’t like the shape of his bell curve. Those people got really shorted in bonus and received 0 merit despite meeting every single documented metric/ goal.
When the job market settles, this bank is going to have an epic talent drain.
They are now forcing every manager to do quarterly check-ins with their team in workday so I would not be surprised that Q2 check-ins will replace the mid-year reviews
@cf I didn’t take this person‘s posting to mean that he and only he wasn’t getting a midyear… I took it to me that mid years were gone for everyone. Did I miss something in my reading?
Every decision the company makes comes down to money. Not having mid year reviews can mean a few things. One, they plan on laying you off and having a review is a waste of time and resources. Or, they did an internal study, (unbeknownst to everyone else) and have concluded that the chances of you not meeting your goals by whatever math they choose to use, will make it easier to let you go, or at the very least ensure that your raise at the end of the year is next to nothing.
If this is true..it is likely legal having issues with mid-year ratings of meets or higher then year-end inconsistently meets or lower. It used to be expected whatever mid-year rating is end of year should be same. That will prevent managers giving decent mid-year score to keep people motivated and make it easier to justify lay-offs or terminations. Maybe behind the scenes are lawsuits brewing??
@c9 that would be amazing. I despise mid year reviews, especially if you have a manager bent on a power trip uses the review to belittle you versus give a fair assessment of your work.
Heard the same from managers this week
Lol, maybe the team won't be around by mid year.
Since when? Were you laid off? Did your LOB communicate that mid year reviews were being phased out? What’s the deal?🤔