So are we now incentivized to hope our colleagues can’t perform or sc--w up? With a forced rank rating system, that’s what will happen. Not ‘one team’ anymore
13 replies (most recent on top)
Forced ranking is fine. People still help each other. It’s a way to get dead weight out. Only the dead weight complain about it.
the difference is PIPing the bottom 5% instead of just cutting back their bonus. of course there are always performance ratings at every major. shell, BP, etc too.
@OP CVX has done this for years. "Rank, Yank & Sp--k".
XOM here - surprised that CVX was not already doing forced ranking stacks? That's how we've done it for years. Think of it like a yearly contract where past performance can only hurt but never help.
Chevron has been ranking employees for years. Don't believe those who say different.
Forced ranking is more a "beauty pageant" than a disciplined selection/identification of performance.
HiPo's are always ranked very highly even if they are moved into a higher classification where the "competition" should be stronger.
Having said that---- it does provide some indication of how leadership views your contribution/performance.
Most difficult ranking decision is when roles are distinctly different (how do you compare someone w/ significant supervisory role compared to an individual contributor? Also, different specialties within the same ranking group ?)
“Force ranking” is nothing new if you were paying attention. There might be broad categories going into the initial evaluation, but what comes out at the end is a ranking. Whether it’s the old days when managers got together at different levels in the organization to “discuss” you for two minutes then decide who got what or now when supposedly your manager alone decides how much of a pot of money you get, it all comes down to a ranking to know who got the most (HiPo’s) and who got the shaft and what those in between got a portion of.
Forced ranking creates an environment where people do not help each other and cross train for the improvement of the “team”. If that is what Chevron LT wants, then so be it. In the long run this decreases productivity and value creation.
@ch
i am sure the ranking system is just as legit as the 'voting' system
do we get to rank upper management
and 'vote' out the biggest losers
obviously you're a newbie - we've had forced ranking for years...."we need more 3's, someone needs to move." Unless you're a slacker and need a gold star on your mother's refrigerator, do your job and you'll be fine
We're looking to sharpen our competitive edge by implementing a stacked ranking protocol. General Electric was a strong advocate for this protocol, and look how it's helped them to crash and break up into a bunch of smaller companies. Oh, wait...
forced rankings for everyone who isn’t a manager
this is how we wind up with infinite middle layers and four people working
When was this announced? Cutting "We Lead" down from four elements to two is still a relatively fresh change. Reviving the clustering system isn't something I have heard outside of this website.