What is actually happening to the low performers? Just not getting the “much higher “ gdp? Will there be a layoff targeted at them this month? It sounds like not all are getting PIPs
21 replies (most recent on top)
Aside not getting any GDP, I think you will be fine and next year will be different.
Unfortunately, she is kinda right, she has to pick one or more people to be low in such a barbaric system. Most teams don't have people that should be rated low, no matter how long they have been on the team.
At the end of day, it is going to be your decision if you want to take the gut punch or take your business elsewhere. It will probably be the same elsewhere if you work for a big company. They are all the same these days.
I got marked low performer for last year. I was pretty angry, especially when I'm new to the team, she marked all her old team average or good, and then when I asked how she can justify marking me low, she did a sea water wave up and down sign and said "I'm under extreme pressure from upper management to mark someone on the team as low, so it has to be you" <- exact quote. Well, I guess I no longer have a working relationship with her anymore. This is apparently the best IBM has to offer for management.
Lower performers will get 0% for GDP. Managers were made aware of the fixed percentages for GDP in early 2025. 0% low, 1% core and 2% high. Low performers should be prepared for a PIP as the next step.
Low performer here
I can’t wait to get rid of my low performers very soon
@jf if you are marked low performer two years in a row you go on a pip (and it may be just a formality to exit you) .
It does not matter if you are low, core or high performers. This is not what decides who goes... what decides who goes (gets laid off) is your age, the amount of time you have been at the company and the amount of money you are making.
@j5
And very very very expensive
I am not sure why their job has not been outsourced to india for maximum profit
Fire all the low performers! Sc-mbags!!
@j1: All these problems can be solved, if executives and managers are fired. They are mostly useless and worthless.
Manager here. This will be graded on a curve -- and depend on each country's labor laws and practices. Those countries with "at will" employment laws (like the US), will be pressed to identify as many people as possible. We can expect each manager will be asked to identify the bottom 15% on their team (or more). The unintended consequence is, those employees who are on a high performing team are at the same risk as those on a low performing team. And those employees in countries with weaker labor laws are at greater risk.
Fire them all they all earned it! And we all know it!
As a customer, I cannot trust IBM and its product, when IBM admits that 15% are "low performers". Would anyone eat in a restaurant knowing that at least 15% of the employees don't wash their hands after using the bathroom and the restaurant has a sign displaying that info.
The stup1d Indian at the top is full of garbage and needs to be fired.
The issue with the 15/70/15 stack is this: I work on an R&D team of about ten people, and at the team level, all of our projects are important. We all understand that and respect each other’s work. But recently, some projects have been tied directly to customers. As a result, the people assigned to those projects are effectively exempt from the bottom 15%. Meanwhile, those of us on projects without a direct customer tie are almost automatically at risk of falling into that category.
It stops being about performance and becomes about project assignment. This isn’t new — we’ve seen it before. The last time it happened, it created significant issues, especially when customer priorities shifted or projects changed direction. That’s part of why the approach was abandoned in the past. It’s disappointing to see it being revived again.
IBM is now 1 of the most WOKE DEI companies sadly. They no longer recruit, hire, train, retain, promote based on SKILLS and ACCOMPLISHMENTS. They do all of this via "other things".
IBM missed this memo from 1964:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, s-x (including pregnancy, s-xual orientation, and gender identity), and national origin. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees, labor unions, and employment agencies, and is enforced by the EEOC.
They need a minimum 15 percent low performers and a max 15 percent high performers and a min 70 percent core
@cp true they do exist. But the vast majority if not all of the “low performers” that I am aware of or are in my vicinity are absolutely not low performers. It is very curious why they are selected when there were better potential picks to fill such a category
When the posts on this site keep disappearing because they offend the crooked CEO and his minions, you know that low performers are involved in doing that. Yes, the truth always hurts.
@ay I am sure some really are low performers . The ones I know who are aren’t marked that way but that doesn’t mean there are no low performers marked as low performers
@ay: The "low performers" category is mandated quota by the Indian sc-mbag lying id1ot at the top and his cabal, executed by the spineless, worthless and useless sh1tty managers.
So, how do you differentiate between a real "low performer" and another that is impacted by the quota system ?
Please, use your brain.
@OP well are any of the low performers that you are aware of actually truly low performers? There’s your answer right there