And isn't really related to actual performance either.
Agree?
8 replies (most recent on top)
I don't think there's any difference at all. They've only got so much money they are going to pay out.
Years ago I worked for another company that gave out monthly bonuses based on your performance. For several years, your bonus was based completely off of you hitting your goals... do this, get $xx, do this get $xx, etc. You might also have a smaller team bonus (if everyone does x, then you all get $x). The bonuses were usually pretty nice. It also fostered teamwork because you wanted everyone on your team to meet their goals.
Then they did away with that and did a pool. Where there was $xxxx money in the pot, and you were competing against everyone else for a larger share. The bonuses were much smaller, and now there was actually incentive to not help your coworkers hit their goals - because then you might get a slightly bigger piece of the pool. If everyone did well, the amount in the pool stayed the same and everyone got a small portion. If only a few did well and everyone else did not, then those that did well got a larger portion.
And that's how I feel CVS has become - if everyone in your department does well, then everyone does poorly for bonuses.
I agree, it's totally not worth all of the extra effort you need to put in for 52 weeks of the year to earn a 4. Not to mention, you may put in all that effort and still not get a 4. You will look back and tell yourself it wasn't worth it, but then it will be too late. I know from lots of experience with this and lots of disappointment. A bigger bump in pay usually comes from learning everything you can in your current position (this does not mean ki-ling yourself for a 4), then obtaining a new position within the company every 3 years or so. This also increases your skill set and makes you more valuable. Way better than staying in the same position forever and ki-ling yourself for a 4.
It depends, but mostly agree. The whole performance system is FUBAR.
The company's HR touts "pay for performance." That doesn't work for a couple reasons. First, there's very little difference between 3 and 4 in terms of salary increase or MIP bonus. 2.75% vs 3% is not only less than inflation, but barely makes a difference in salary or pay rate. Second, the funding system doesn't work for teams that are well performing. Why? Because if all colleagues are rated a 3 or 4, you have no extra in the budget pool. Without that extra, you simply can't award more money to 4s. You can see if the larger team you are with has some they haven't used (hahaha).
That's only part of the problem. The expectation that every team has colleagues falling into a bell curve is ludicrous unless the concept is every colleague on the team is rated against each other rather than against the goals that we spend so much time creating. However, that's what HR expects and many weak management "leaders" espouse because they're too afraid TBH disagree. But the reality is this is all part of the larger goal to contain and reduce payroll costs. As a leader, you toe the line or live in constant frustration.
There is some ability to reward better with the MIP bonus when you have 1s and 2s and in general if you're willing to give 3s 80-85% you can use those dollars to raise a 4 up a little above 100%.
Let's also not forget the diminishing LTI system that continues to devalue entry to mid management (Mgr thru ED) through ongoing elimination and reduction in LTI. It now takes 3 SrMgr to provide funds for just 1 SrMgr award. And LD and EDs fund at just 90% now.
And why do we even do this when we CONTINUALLY go outside the company for talent? We don't staff to expand our colleague's skill sets and promote from within. We barely have the staff needed to get the work done as it is.
Disagreeing here. The hiring manager should be looking elsewhere in 3 to 5 years. It's not happening because people do not want to leave the role.
15 years ago you moved up the ladder. If your organization at a mid management level needed restructuring, you were able to move people up based on changing needs.
There are AVPs who deserved to be a VP. Sr Managers who deserved staff to become an LD . Instead someone else gets moved in. And down the ladder it goes. You now have leadership in charge of staff who are behind in management techniques, technology, and industry knowledge because they liked things the way they are.
Nepotism is a problem. As is leaders failing to promote from within their org.
Correct, the fight to give employee a 4 is time-consuming and often is lost on "calibration." The most humane solution is to "overpay" on hire knowing that 2% raises would be the norm and let the new hire know they should be ready to change companies 3 years later.
An employee who actually works hard and does their job well should be rewarded, not treated the same as people who don't work as hard. That's the problem at CVS. My personal opinion is a DL would love for every employee to be a 3 or less. It probably makes the DL look good to keep everyone down, yet it sc--ws the people who work hard and deserve a 4 or 5, only to get "Average" rating. Yes the extra few cents raise for a higher rating, that corporate/DL/RD would fight, doesn't take into account the morale booster that giving a 4 or 5 would do for an employee. The issues is that CVS likes to lump everyone into the same basket, and NOT reward high performers. I've heard managers won't give out higher ratings because if you do, then you gotta justify it to the DL, (who will probably deny it anyway), and they don't want to have that fight.
The culture at CVS needs to change.
Yes correct.
4 is a morale booster.
The inability for people to get promoted is a huge problem. Leaders sitting around comfortable and undermining their staff by sharing personal information about their staff is a problem.
You can list your accomplishments, OKRs, ROIs, Dollars saved and still not get a promotion.
You’re correct. I am a former colleague and got more money some years when I was rated a 4 than a 5. It’s largely a budget based annual increase and the numbers associated with performance are just window dressing. Some years are budgeted better than others.
I voluntarily left CVS a year and a half ago because the job just wasn’t worth it anymore, as measured by the stress and lack of leadership’s measurable achievable goals for every role. For those staying, may the odds be ever in your favor.