How can an individual contributor ever hope for an exceeds expectations rating when they are being calibrated against managers? The visibility, opportunities, and important meetings that managers are privy to isn't an option for individual contributors -- at least not on my team. It is not a level playing field. The managers should be calibrated against other managers, and individual contributors against other individual contributors. This would require more of a general pool approach with milestones adjusted per level-- not so much role. Managers should be expected to perform at a higher level, but the way it's set up now, the bar is same for managers and individual contributors, yet the opportunities to exceed the bar is not. With the "rationing" of exceeds expectations -- it is even more important that at least the playing field is as fair as possible. There is also too much of an opportunity for nepotism and favortism the way it is set up now. Where are the checks and balances? How do you keep someone from saving a favorite who is barely performing at all by stealing from the kitty to under rate a top performer?
22 replies (most recent on top)
I got an exceeds one year and only got a 1% raise and I was told I got the exceeds because I have consistently been a top performer and the goto person on our team forever. As a result, over the years, I got bigger raises than my peers and now it's catching up to me because my salary was near the top end of the range compared to my peers so they needed to allocate the increase budget "more heavily weighted" for my peers than for me to make it "fair" and give them a chance to close the gap. So, an exceeds rating does not mean more $$. At the end of the day, the raise allocation process is more about comparing where you are to where your peers are.
@qg I don't know what department you work in, but where I am, it is one huge clique in management so even multiple people voting would still result in the same favorites receiving the Exceeds ranking year after year.
@qg I think having managers and directors vote would be more rife with issues. Especially if they want one of their people to get the exceeds. Like you would be asking them to try and be fair and objective.
Quotas for exceeds expectations are nothing new. Most companies and government organizations have and use them. What’s unfair or different is the way they are managed. In this organization they give one or two quotas per team (depending on size) which are assigned by the manager. This can lead to favoritism or unfair distribution of rankings. Where we could improve the process is to have a board or committee of directors/managers who review associate performance reviews and vote on who receives the exceeds expectations. This would alleviate the perception of favoritism or unfairness and keep individual managers from honest. We used a similar system in the service and it worked like a champ. In my limited view, no individual manager should be allowed to assigned a ranking without input from a director or a board of managers.
@bc does your own boss know you are the babysitter? Really, did your bosses boss call you and ask you to do this? You must work in National. I hope you did not lose the opportunity to tell that person it is not your job and in fact theirs. If not their is still time "after reflection....I don't think this is appropriate role for me to mentor the person who I report to....
Managers can only give 1 exceeds expectations even if others are working hard. It’s the system!!
@ks Same here. I was told by a manager that it didn't matter what I did or how far above and beyond I went, I was never going to get an Exceeds ranking.
@ks I've always known how it works, but I've never been told this year quite as plainly: I was told by my manager that she could only give one exceeds, and it had to be someone who had contributed to the bottom line, which in my role, I don't. So even though she and everyone I requested feedback from said I was a rock star, she was forced to give me a meets. She told me he pushed comp as far as she could, which of course I won't know till next week, but I predict a solid 1.5% at best.
Though given the job market, I'd rather this than sending out 1000 resumes to no response, which is what's happening now and will get worse with the new rounds of massive layoffs elsewhere this month. AI is so great.
15+ years I have been here, it’s useless and not worth analyzing. It got worse by the years
Sometimes if the individual contributor has complained about the manager to HR, and now the manager is scared, what if, Jumi leaves, then he is matching up by giving exceeds to compensate and win over. It’s like buttering up for the screaming episode.
My first boss here told me no one ever gets exceeds so don’t bother rating yourself that way 🤣. So, I do my job well and keep my head down and don’t volunteer for extra work. It gets you nothing but more work and a “meets.”
Managers, directors, and chief of staffs have a conflict of interest in rating associates who they are also competing against for ratings. Separating individual contributors from managers and above alleviates this conflict of interest and also creates an even playing field for those in different role categories.
@bc - If you are serious about getting the coveted Exceeds rating, you need to go the extra mile to prove yourself worthy. Start small by offering to pick up your leader’s dry cleaning. You can then take on additional responsibilities such as picking their kids up from school or planning their birthday parties. You’ll win their favor in no time!
@bq ...but they don't...and they won't. Get used to it.
Managers can make up the difference in rating with money manually. We get the target and then a pool of extra to allocate. I agree that the ranking system is d-mb, but if your manager had to drop you down one because of limited exceeds, they can make it up with money to keep you whole.
Think that is bad? I was just told to be a mentor for my own boss because she doesn't know what she is doing! HA! Can you imagine how fast I moved on that task???? From someone who has been here a decade and never received an Exceeds ranking.....
@ar it's perfectly reasonable to care about the rating as it DOES affect the money in the bank. You clearly care about the money so by association you care about the rating. Caring about the rating doesn't mean you are a dog or lead with your rating it means you do care about being comendated for the effort you put it. You are talking out of both sides of your face
I don't give a po-p about some words on a paper. I care about the money in my bank. I don't need to be told I did good. I'm not a dog. I know exactly what I did and didn't do. When someone meets you for the first time, do they ever ask "hey, what was your last performance rating". Who cares. It's also not worth going above and beyond in the hopes of getting a 4 or 5 which you won't, getting burned out, etc. for a few lousy dollars. No thanks.
@ak wanting a fair process is NOT an ego seeking thing. It's a moral, practical and financial thing. Exceeds does equate to more money-- even if it's 1% more of a raise it's cumulative and matters more than not. A higher bonus, even if it's a smidge higher, is still more money. Don't minimalize and gaslight the situation by saying it doesn't matter because it does matter. You must be one of the useless, plays favorites, inept managers making decisions they have no ability or really right to make. They can still keep the same limited number of "exceeds" but I would much rather compete with my peers in an objective situation than lumped in with a bunch of inept favorites who are being protected because the weak protects the weak.
@OP First the rating system will never be overhauled - it is working as they designed it to - only a % of staff that report to an individual can get it - the smaller the team or reports - the smaller the percentage. Honestly your ego is what seeks "exceeds" - no one else cares - and you might want to know that the merit does not necessarily line up with the rating - it lines up with the bucket of money to start with and the "recommendations" to each person based on their current salary range.
Another thing - you can have years of exceeds then all of sudden get a meets and do nothing different performance wise and get some BS reason why -
Last - you won't get a better job internally because you got an exceeds- you just won't - as many have said - no one cares about anyone but themselves. Ask yourself if you have been asked "what are your goals" by your boss who has held their title of manager, or director or VP for YEARS - what are their goals? Self preservation
Yep it’s a stupid process. I don’t even bother taking it seriously anymore. If you truly exceed expectations but aren’t given it to give to someone else with higher title it is a waste of time for everyone involved. I just don’t bother trying to exceed expectations anymore. What is the point with a rigged system.
Sadly, they can only give exceeds to one in whole team. So its a tough choice.