Lots of talk about targeting low performers. How to judge an employee to be a low performer? The review scores?
11 replies (most recent on top)
Yes--some of us live vicariously through the misery of the peons!
not everyone visiting this forum is not worried about layoff, Some of them here to experience dramatic fall of once a best company to work for in SD
@116263: No, 5 on the new scale = 4.0 on the old scale. Aside from being blacklisted, I have close to a photographic memory. The odd thing is that on the old scale, 4 = "often exceeds," and on the new scale, 5 = "significant/exceeds." (Sic.) The closest description on the new scale that matches the old scale is "substantial/sometimes exceeds." (Sic.) This is less than 5. Also, whoever made the chart doesn't seem to be aware that in most corporations, "proficient" is barely acceptable or adequate, while "consistently meets goals and expectations" is at least good -- or certainly better than adequate performance. Perhaps if the conversion chart had been drafted by someone who actually speaks English, it would have been more comprehensible to the legal people who determine who gets laid off, and who will have to be PIP'ed--to avoid any legal unpleasantness.
That's nice, but that still doesn't adjust for the fact that the application of the new scale is arbitrary, and that the definitions are treated as "suggestions" by PMs and Dirs. Also, there is a two month difference between the evaluation period and the review period. So it's possible to screw an employee over on the next review if the prior evaluation was unfavorable. Furthermore, if they put the tasks in which you were judged unfavorable in your "Development" or "Goals" sections, you can be screwed over indefinitely, even if your job description is 100% different during the next review period. Isn't that grand!
The ones with strong personalities who don't kiss butts and don't give a fck. They're not afraid of losing their jobs because they're confident that they'll find other opportunities else where. They might not get along well with their direct managers, but I find them to be very personable, highly intelligent, and probably most ethical. They genuinely do care about this country (USA) and the next generations. They value their activities outside of work and time with their loved ones. Sadly, they're not well-connected. Well, let me take it back. It's not "sadly", it might have been what they wanted: get paid to get the fck out.
@ Anonymous116256
If you didn't know there is a 5 point scale to 7 point scale conversion chart.
Review 5 on 7P scale is equivalent to 3.5/4 on 5P scale if I remember correctly. Don't know what exactly Sr VP is talking about exactly.
@ Sr. VP: What freakin' planet are you on? Prior to fall 2014, the highest grade you could get was a 5, and very few were given out--or so I was told. So as of July, there haven't been 3 review cycles where one could even get above a 5. If you actually looked closely at the new 7 point scale, it has a rating system that leaves so much to the discretion of managers that it may never stand up in court under the standard in Smith v. Jackson City. So suck on that, Q-lackey!
Its a bit complicated. And we take into account a lot of other factors. But basically if you have had 5 and lower reviews for last 3 cycles will be eliminated.
People who does not kiss ass and does not have proper connections, I also know bunch of people that should be in the list but I don't undestand why do they still around....
Sad but true, I personally know a guy that fits that description and got a bad review. He is blacklisted.
Is a guy who doesn't kiss butt and refuses to work on weekends. Prefer to have dinner with the family and help the kids with their homework.