heard HR is going back to the 5-point performance rating system. Is that true?
10 replies (most recent on top)
Agreed that the 4 & 5 quotas existed. Varied by business performance, indeed. Usually the calibration meetings came in at 23% and we were usually told to drop it a bit. A boss once reminded us that "you folks need to fit in here too, you know". But everyone still pushed the upper limit.
Once in a while, word came down that there was some additional upside potential. We always had a list of "bubble people" that could move up if there was space. This was not rare.
I did hear rumors of a business unit that didn't meet goals, so no one got anything above meets expectations.
From the HR moves this year.
Firstly they get all employees mandatory to key in the goals setting into workday. Then mid year they get supervisors to put in remarks. Right now they going to implement the 5 point system.
We can anticipate that BB & HR is going to do forced ranking and remove those low performers. Dont believe? Just wait and see.
@np I am part of “calibration” meetings. If our manager does not like someone even though they are exemplary employees this manager gives the employee a bad rating. He seeks out feedback on employees outside of the normal process and there is no way to challenge the feedback.
Pretty sure I had the reverse happen with the behind doors politiking on being rated. My boss decided they didn’t like me so was dragging out stupid out of date feedback to use against me. I was certain I’d be ranked below standard that year but thankfully had good rapport with my boss’s peers and their boss, they likely defended me.
@nc gladly out of this mess of calibration sessions. But the dirtiest battles were the battle lines between the last people who get 3 (average) and the last person who would be denied a 3 and given a 2 (below average). Behind closed doors these sessions got nasty at times. I saw such coalition politicking happen. A few leaders would gang up on another leader's people and, while saving one of their employees from being a 2, they could "vote" to given that sorry sap leader another 2 ranked employee. Then that leader had to write a performance review with negatives to help "explain" why the employee was below average (2).
I can confirm this, never restricted promotions due to budget, the difference in pay on an annual budget was not significant. I have seen promotions restricted to prevent an appearance of 'too high' of percentage being promoted in a single calendar year.
Also, there is a quota for 'exceeds', always has been despite HR's openly lying about it. 20% roughly which varies a bit based on business results. On the 5 point scale it was 20% for 4's and 5's combined. The very highest I ever managed to get for a reasonably-sized team was right around 25% and that took serious fighting up to the SVP level to get the fraction held up.
I've heard that (what I believe is a myth) excuse for a long time. I was a manager of one sort or another for >25 years. Never once was I told that I couldn't promote someone due to budget limitations. Never. Never. I just don't believe that is real.
The numbers are all made up, anyhow.
I've had to deal with calibration meetings for years; there's still a quota, and always has been. When they impose arbitrary rules like saying it would be unfair to give the "exceeds " to your employee two years in a row, even though he has been doing a phenomenal job and continues to perform at a high level (but can't promote him, because there's no money in the budget for that), you know it's all a joke.
actually, the 5 point scale is fine.....when used properly, without ulterior motives. Some peoples' performance warrants a "below expectations" (a 2). It's a useful performance management tool and can be used to help demonstrate the need for changes, but only if done honestly. If there's an imposed quota, a la the evil Jimbo days, then it stinks.
Given BBs intense dislike of Minnesota Nice and focus on making things as miserable as possible to drive away (without severance) it makes sense (to him) to make it easier to divide the masses.
In the Mcnerney days, manditory forcing 15 to 20 percent to be ranked with the dreaded 2 (below average) meant those people were subject to abuse and being threatened with the 1 (unsatisfactory) ranking the next time. He drove off people worried they'd be fired on a whim once he promised Wall Street another cost cutting "improvement" to meet next quarter's estimates (handed to him by WS AN-L-lysts).
BB fancies himself a messianic CEO in the likes of Jimbo Mack. So yes, expect Jack Welch rank and yank coming to a open office desk near you. Just plain old Minnesota Nasty.