There are a lot of comments here mentioning that low performers should be the first ones to go, but on the other hand, how fair the performance evaluation really is?
I've been in restructuring he-l for the past two years and changed 3 managers. My earlier manager told me that I'm already performing above my grade and would consider me for a promotion, until I'm moved under my current manager near the reward cycle who passed me over and gave me average anual rating even though I had recognition for flawless execution from program office.
I'm really done with this hole and have already applied for VSP. Will spend some time with my kids until the market recovers.
10 replies (most recent on top)
Employee ratings is like a high school popularity contest. No wonder we keep lagging behind tsmc, Samsung, amd. They focus in the work targets, we focus on being popular with your managers and their managers.
Performance ratings are full of favouritism
Intel would do much better if they rated employees on how many hot dogs they can eat in the least amount of time.
This place makes no sense to me. I have been actively reducing my workload, yet somehow I have been promoted 3 times in the last three years. I have had multiple managers and I am intentionally borderline hostile to each one. RL Office Space.
This won't work, MANY of the low performers here in chandler are way too buddy buddy with their direct supervisors. So much so they even laughing how untouchable they are even in these times.
The performance system is flawed. I got bad ratings by a manager that did not know the milestones of the projects I worked on. Manager didn’t know most projects were completed. I was practically measured against manager’s favorite who used some of my results as metrics for their own project. My rating was challenged and upgraded but right now, I know where I stand with this manager.
The first to leave are the ones management doesn't like for any whimsical reason. This is the truth. "Performance" is just an excuse they use to justify why someone got selected just in case there's a lawsuit. Similarly, they often use "job elimination" as a rationale... even though, they "eliminate" a person's job, and magically, there's someone else is doing the exact same function or deliverable.
I would think that the purpose of layoffs is more about saving money than performance management. IMO, one downside to having too many high performers is that they can be expensive. I mean, that's why jobs often get moved to lower cost geos instead of to higher performing geos.
Insights is a joke. They really should let under performing people go. But problem is Intel does not know who these people are. So it will turn into favoritism like you mentioned
The entire employee rating system is a sham based on favoritism and their ability to drive to low cost alternatives by eliminating high wage employees.