If leadership can dictate NO ONE can get a 5.
If leadership can mandate EVERYONE gets a 3.
If leadership can wholesale change merit increases.
Why have a review process?
6 replies (most recent on top)
Yes its a total waste of time that takes 5 minutes. Do what comp planner allows to actually save without a warning. Then after leadership calibrates etc. Go look in Comp planner to see what the results are for your team. The end. They actually hold comp planner information sessions for this cr-p. like it matters. Optional of course lol.
Busted my @ss one year, had amazing stats, reviews, all the extra things, extra career ladder. Etc.etc. Got mostly 3s and 4s. NO 5s.
Got my whopping 1.5% raise.
Didn't buss my @ss the next year. Did the bare minimum. Made it a point to say nothing and do nothing extra. Flew under the radar. No extra stress but still solid stats and completion rate. DID take any extra time with members to make sure they got all they need. Never miss an opportunity to stick it to the company and make them pay for stuff they are supposed to pay for.
Got my whopping 1.5% raise. Same MAP scores.
Stop ki-ling yourself for this company.
The only people making the $$ are the CEOs who literally don't care about the patient experience and doing ethical things.
I agree it’s absolute BS. I hate this company !
You are asking the right question. All my reviews for my employees were changed by leadership. Then they changed all the compensation that I put into the system. They mess around with the allocations for people they don’t even know. Then in my area they made a blanket statement yesterday that 3s won’t get RRP or Merit. What kind of BS is that especially after they forced us to give 3s. I think they are going to walk that back but as of now all my 3s get no RRP or Merit.
Seriously in my opinion the whole thing is basically BS corporate cr-p. The "review" isn't actually meant to tell us how we are doing—it’s just a way for them to put a professional-looking label on a pre-decided budget and give the lawyers a paper trail in case they let people go later- For example;
- Legal Paper Trail: They need a paper trail for everyone to prevent lawsuits. Using a "forced curve" (specific amounts of 2s, 3s, and 4s) makes it look like a standardized system on paper.
'Fixed' Math: By forcing a specific number of 2s, 3s, and 4s, leadership controls exactly how much money leaves the building. It’s about hitting a budget target, not your actual performance.
The "Exit" List: It forces managers to rank us against each other. If they need to cut more people later, they’ll just look at who they stuck in the "2" bucket this year to decide who goes first.
I could be wrong though.
These rules apply to U.S employees only. Leadership is openly stating that onshore roles are being replaced with offshore roles, while simultaneously reducing resources, tightening restrictions, and applying harsher performance standards ONLY to U.S. employees.
Those same leadership-driven constraints are then used to justify lower performance ratings, which are later cited as the reason roles can be offshored. When performance outcomes are manufactured by removing staffing, tools, or support, and then used to justify displacement, that is pretext — not legitimate performance management. This isn’t neutral “globalization.” It looks like intentionally setting one group up to fail in order to create a paper trail for workforce replacement.
At best, this reflects unethical leadership. At worst, it raises serious legal concerns around bad-faith performance management and disparate treatment. This is my personal observation based on current policy changes and leadership messaging as well as my experience.