Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Bonuses and Performance Ratings

Does anyone know how bonus amounts are decided? Is it true managers are told how many people must receive a certain rating. For example; on a team with 10 people there can be no more than 2 people rated at “Exceeds” and there must be at least 2 people to receive “Inconsistently Meets”.


by
| 1691 views | | 12 replies (last February 26) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kj98remw

12 replies (most recent on top)

I had three people who should have been exceeds but was forced to pick one who would be rated meets.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @g1+1kj98remw

@ew (1) yes, and some senior leaders say no promotion unless rating is above meets; and (2) when i was a manager and hired people i could see ratings but not the actual reviews. might be different now.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f6+1kj98remw

@ak is this not similar to the quotas managers were forced to meet which led them to force employees to open fake accounts?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ex+1kj98remw

@bg are performance reviews used to determine who may be eligible for a promotion or title upgrade? Are performance reviews visible to hiring managers when they are considering an internal candidate?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ew+1kj98remw

This definitely happens. What's worse is that HR is now calling managers of employees who have received an IM rating twice (including mid-year) to ask why the employee hasn't been fired for cause yet (i.e., without severance). Two strikes you're out, period.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @e0+1kj98remw

I was told by my 1-up that I was "that guy" this year who got the IM. No raise (only the second time I've received no raise in over 2 decades of working here, the other was a horribly ineffective manager) and I only got ~75% of previous years' bonus.

I was casually looking for a new job before, now I'm really putting feelers out. I'm not worried, though. I have high confidence I'm in an upcoming layoff wave.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d2+1kj98remw

I had to sc--w my boss to get 2% and he wasn't even a good lay.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cg+1kj98remw

Its unfortunate but WF has so many totally clueless and useless managers that if this wasnt being enforced there would literally never be anything except exceeds and meets handed out anywhere. When managers refuse to hold anyone accountable for anything thats when the companies forced to step in and mandate this kind of thing, which is also unfair but at least serves to hopefully remove the dead weight at the bottom, at least in theory. Of course these same incompetent managers usually sc--w that up as well by identifying good employees as poor ones (while their buddies remain), no matter how much they su-k. Such is corporate life.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ca+1kj98remw

Yes, it's real and happens. The "guided distribution" is corp-speak for "forced ranking".. It is supposed to be applied to larger groups but over the years it's dropped down the the team level. By the time we get to mid year reviews, our managers are already demanding to know who we plan to try and put up for anything over "meets.". And for every top rated employee, we have to force another person to below meets rating.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bg+1kj98remw

@OP Yes that's true but the forced curve wouldn't be applied like that for a team that small. It's applied on a larger scale.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @am+1kj98remw

Direct managers are pressured to reduce rating to meeting artificially quotas and then support them with fake performance reviews about artificial makeup things that were brought up to the employees attention.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ak+1kj98remw

Jesus

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ac+1kj98remw

Post a reply

: