Thread regarding Optum layoffs

I've been an individual contributor for 10+ years, and got solid 3s last year. They give 3's to justify no raise upon common review.

If people are reading themselves 5s but you think they're performing as 2s then you're at fault. You're not clearly communicating performance expectations and demonstrating how they are not meeting them. That's not comical. That's poor management.

I bet favoritism will still play a role

I have some people who are functioning as 2s but consider themselves 5s?! Just who are they comparing themselves to?! It’s actually comical in some aspects. Do higher up execs let the 2s go?! I sure do hope so -what a lazy argumentative crew they are.

It’s all subjective - the good ole’ days of getting rewarded for your performance is over or has been over for sometime.

Nowadays it’s a political game- justification to make way for outsource and offshore by forced lower ratings on FTE’s to avoid legality.
Wishing a happy new year to all - survivors if you are still around.. if you are on your way out..

Absolutely true, many “senior” managers are told to not give more than a 3. Middle managers are not aware of the silent rule and may end up giving higher than a 3, but that results in no impact on the back end. Many from acquired entities that were consistently a 5 and suddenly got 3’s were advised by their supervisor that no matter how much they excelled, the manager’s hands are tied and not allowed to give a higher than 3 rating. If you got a 4 then they have to explain why you are not being promoted. Middle managers are not aware that they are actually kept in the dark about a lot of things.

There is an expected distribution.
10 - 20% given 5s
15 - 25% given 4s
45 - 50% given 3s
5 -10% given 2s and 1s

Bonus is typically not given to 20% of a team, usually looked across an organization, not small teams.

Good teams take the process seriously and care about the results. There are fewer of those teams than there should be.

Anything less than 3 and you are getting let go

I know sometimes managers are pressured to have an array (i.e. only a certain number/% can be above 3) but there’s definitely no requirement like that. I could see some managers thinking that makes sense if seniority matters to them and they consider experience, or worse, loyalty, instead of skills. There is pressure not to have many 4s and 5s and a big documentation requirement for those in some cases.

Manager offering lame excuse to avoid confrontation due to forced stack ranking.

The practice of stack ranking, otherwise known as rank-and-yank or forced ranking, was conceptualized by GE’s CEO Jack Welch in the 1980s as a method of differentiating high-performing employees from low-performing employees. The process ranks individual employees relatively against their coworkers in order to reward top-tier performers, while identifying and weeding out low performers.

n a stack ranking performance rating system, managers are forced to rate their employees on a bell curve. Only about 10-20% of employees can be designated as top performers, while a fixed number of employees must be labeled as low performers and are either placed in a probationary improvement period or let go. In the meantime, about 70% of the company’s workforce, labeled the “vital” employees, are depended upon for adequate and reliable performance. Stack ranking seeks to identify the most vital employees.

GE was one of the first companies to adopt forced ranking. Former CEO Jack Welch? He created the “Vitality Curve,” and claimed it was the reason GE’s revenues doubled back in the 80s. Welch believed the company had become too comfortable and that GE wasn’t effectively measuring employee performance, resulting in a lack of motivation. He demanded staff work harder or got fired. GE no longer uses the “rank and yank” philosophy.

As a director, I can say I've never hear of that "rule". Sounds like BS.

It is Bullsh-te, but not an HR rule. Have had my Dir lower a recent promotion from a 4 to a 3. They said if you are new to a role, there is no way you can exceed it already. Despite the fact that the person was already exceeding everyone's expectations. They do this because all ratings are on a bell curve, and this allows them to give someone else a 4. No matter how well you or your team did, there can only be 5% at a 5, 10% at a 4, etc... and 10% have to be a 2. If you do not meet the bell curve, the system flags it, and someone will do it for you.

That sound like BS. That might be your managers rule...

Never heard of this. Got a 4.8 MAP score with less than 2 years in a role.

Some folks call me a Zero. Is that good?