I'm newer to Chevron and still learning the ropes. I assume valuable contribution is basically average or meets expectations and, thus, gets people a 3% raise. But how does exceeds expectations affect your raise?
Does anyone ever get exceeds in all four categories? Are those reserved for the so called HiPots? And do PMP results help managers identify which people to put on their layoff shortlist (aka, expects more get put up for layoffs first)?
@dnb+1vREd3LL PMP results have more effect on promotions (especially out of cycle/early) and move to new positions. Like somebody else on here said, raises are from the money pool and dependent on CO%
we're not supposed to be calling it that, but I just LOL because I looked at my meeting invite for next week and the boss titled it "final PMP"
New to Chevron but you’re referring to the “PMP process”…
Any pay increase you see at Chevron is much more related to corporate performance than anything related to individual performance.
I don't think a valuable contribution should cause someone's layoff.. I am not too sure what 4x valuable vs 4x exceed would translate into raise . Maybe a 3 v 6 % raise ? No doubt multiple expects more ratings can trigger someones layoff.. there will be scenarios where complete teams could be wiped off. If you are a performer I am sure there is something better waiting for you !!
Yes. No. Yes.
basically, HR outsourcing the work of allocating bonus and salary raises to your supervisor given the pool of $$$. Your supervisor will be accountable for your performance and justification for the $$$ allocated. Any unhappiness with the $$$, it will be your supervisor problem, not HR
Find a manager or 4 who is average or better still inexperienced and unqualified to always agree with despite them not having a clue. When you realise they will never go the extra step to improve things, then you know you've made it. Why? Because the status quo allows them to stay on the good money and if they see you won't sink their non rocking boat they'll support you.
PMP is basically a joke. It is setup for those that are favored, hi-pots etc. if you are new then understand the game you have to play and are you willing to play it. Other than that those who are “educated” actually have to play or eventually you have to leave.
The old system was very time consuming because they attempted to level the playing field across teams but there was also a normal distribution they attempted to emulate. And the raises and bonus calculations where much more transparent. In other words your direct supervisor has less overall influence on your rating. I know people don't believe but I have seen folks ratings changed because a supervisor was challenged in those sessions. To reduce the time spent on the process they came up with this really murky pool of money per team. It's a really bad system. At least with the old system several levels of leadership had to approve your rating. So if your boss didn't like you but the manger or GM did then you at least got a second look.
The ratings are new. It used to be a number system and getting a -2 or 3 definitely got you a PIP or on a list.
The new system does come with a pool of money and more exceeds help with the suggested raise. It also depends on how far away you are from your PSG CO. Two people that got meets expectations would potentially get different $ amounts if one was further below CO.
Plus, if you’ve capped in your pay grade, your performance is irrelevant, your pay raise will be far below inflation.
@tqr what's the point of the ratings if there's no correlation between ratings and raise? A false sense of being pat on the back? Keep up the good work, kid!
There’s no direct correlation to your raise and your PMP ratings. Your supervisor gets a pool of money and can allocate that across their direct reports. It comes with recommended adjustments, and nobody’s sure what that calculation is but the pooled amount doesn’t change based on their direct reports ratings