The new performance distribution targets are roughly 18% 'Contributing' and 2% 'Underperforming.' Is leadership actually held to these same quotas, or is this just another squeeze on ICs? Word on the floor is that managers are using the lower tiers to offload people they personally dislike rather than using actual metrics. Between the forced rankings and the 3-year raise freeze, it feels like the IC experience is being sacrificed to pad the leadership layer.
6 replies (most recent on top)
I experienced this though I actually up performed my group. I absolutely was targeted.
@eq There is no "exceeding". "Underpeforming" is 0-50% VC as a % of Target. "Contributing" is 50-95%. "Leading" is 95-120%. "Excelling" is 120-200%.
I'm surprised more people haven't bitched about how being exceeding can still result with you getting 80% of your VC.
not sure what is the expectation here? you have to work to get raise. This is true for all.
Don’t forget your bonus is directly attributable to your new ranking, which is also shifting. This is nothing more than a way to force people with “2” uncomfortable and minimize cost I.e. reduce your bonus payout.
Low ratings have always been a way to force people out. Could be a personal issue, performance, or both.
All big companies do that. Nothing new.