Curious how many other 1's & 2's were selected while many obvious non-performers and non- value adders are being retained?
Kinda Feel worse for the performers left behind than those that get paid off to find a better gig .
Show us your score "2"!
21 replies (most recent on top)
How it works in reality. Yes, there is a bell curve for determining the number of 1's, 2's, etc. However, actual performance often has nothing to do with the ranking. There are competing criteria involved. For example, in order to get promoted, the internal criteria may require that an employee have been ranked a 1 or 2 each of the previous 2 or 3 years. So, in order to get a person promoted, their supervisor puts them in for a 1 or 2, over the person that busted their butt that year and achieved great results. I would estimate that these rankings to get people promoted account for 80-90% of all the 1's and 2's. One of the other items that often gets thrown in the mix is the label of "Hi-Pot" for High Potential assigned to certain individuals. Many supervisors are afraid to give someone who has been labeled as Hi-Pot any ranking below a 1 or 2 because it may make the Hi-Pot's previous supervisor or manager look bad for having placed them in that category. That will take up another 10% or so of the 1's and 2's. That leaves about 10% of the remaining (if 7.5% 1's, and 15% 2's), then that amounts to 2% of the workforce left to receive a 1 or 2 for actual performance. Except in a few special cases, actual discussion about performance only comes into play for very few employees.
Idiotic to state performance is a factor in an environment with performance ratings are concluded in October for goals and objectives yet to be determined. Yes the goals and objectives were concluded after the performance ratings were determined. And the employee is not made aware of the performance rating until the profit sharing statement is published via the online human resources system.
177318, you have described the situation accurately. The performance rating system Cop uses is a very pedestrian way of evaluating employees performance. This, in spite of it being a known and proven fact. Why presumably intelligent managers continue to do it is incomprehensible.
It IS a factor.
Forced rankings serve a purpose for a mature corporate in need of housecleaning. But after 2-3 years the house is clean, so to speak, and the forced rankings need to cease. Individual bad fit employees are dealt with via good management and not forced rankings. Constantly cleaning house creates a bizarre work environment with excess efforts to reach 3 and only a 3 each and every year. The risk takers by definition achieve a high rating or a low rating based on the success or failure of the associated effort by virtue of the forced rankings. And so we have the challenge of HR to eliminate the forced rankings in the company. Oddly enough upper management stated the forced rankings were no longer in place but the reality is quite different.
177407 - You said everyone left should get 1's & 2's. I have been through enough of these "downsizing" efforts to know that when the dust settles, they will continue to grade on a forced bell curve, so people who have been getting 1's & 2's will be in the population who may receive anything from 3, 5, & 5 ratings. Good luck to you all!
2 Years with Company - 1 the first year, 3 the 2nd year, after having 3 different bosses. Didn't even have a performance review the 2nd year, just a well written review saying how well I had adjusted to my new position etc. Let go 3 months later for no apparent reason other than SGL. In Canada there were a lot of 4, 5 rated employees that were RETAINED for god knows what reason. Honestly, wouldn't go back for double the salary as an employee, could be convinced to contract/consult only because I could 'spit out' the Kool-Aid they're force feeding employees any time I felt w/o consequence
'2' with the most experience in the asset. I was the one that held everything together when we were overrun with new supervisors jockeying for position two years ago. "Thanks and here's your severance."
I was laid off in April. I was fortunate enough to get a contractor job with another larger company. In regard to the performance ratings, I think it is all rigged and decided beforehand. I think you can knock yourself out, be a genius, be brilliant, and you will still get a 3. I saw people in our group who were idiots getting a 1, because they were part of the good ol' boys club. And the people to whom I am referring did not understand technology, databases, or the information we were trying to organize for the business, But this one person in particular was a grade 18 or 19, got 1's on performance, and wasn't doing diddly.
Performance system does stink. If we survive this and do our jobs strong throughout all this turmoil how can any of us left be anything other than a 2? And a lot more 1's for those who pick up extra work
177285 - You hit the nail on the head when you said "it's mostly budget." I guarantee this is what has happened. . . They laid the cards on the table, and by that I mean org charts. Then, they identified the employees who cost the company the most. Factors include grade level (not perf rating yet), % of VCIP awarded, & hCompany Retirement Plan. This targets older, more experienced employees without regards to performance ratings. This group does not include performance ratings of 4 & 5, because an employee does not reach this point in their career by receiving ratings of 4 & 5. The majority of these employees are rated 3's. A lot is expected of these employees, so when they meet their goals, they are "expected" to do so, and thus a 3 is awarded. Next . . There are other factors to consider such as links to assets that are being downsized or sold . . . Not good. Now that this group has been weeded out, it is necessary to identify "enough" younger employees to avoid risk of age discrimination lawsuits. I am sure the company looks to eliminate positions, lower performance ratings.
I asked HR if they were targeting poor performers, and I was told that was just a rumor. About that same time, the VP of HR was let go. I was told it was because she was crossways with Ryan Lance over the performance ratings. The way the performance ratings are determined is a forced bell curve rating system (behind closed doors) which dictates there will only be a certain small number of 1's & 2's & 4's & 5's. The remainder of employees who are strong performers are rated as a 3. The VP of HR's position was that it gave 3's little to strive for. Employees who have a lot of experience are "expected" to perform at a certain level, so if they are not provided some opportunities to achieve some project in a stellar manner in addition to their normal high grade workload, then they generally get a 3 which allows management to reserve 1's & 2's to assign to newer employees who are proving themselves. Back to the forced bell curve rating system, did you know that each supervisor under a Director meets TOGETHER to discuss employees and determine who gets what grade? If you have a supervisor who is not good at fighting for his people, he will not be allowed to award many 1's & 2's to employees in his work group. Bottom line . . . there are a LOT of VERY STRONG performers in the grade level 3 pool.
First 3 months of employment "3", 2 years "2", 5 years "1", then got transferred "3", performance dosn;t mean anything other than an excuse to fire you. It is mostly budget.
You know it's not a non-factor but it is also not the only factor.
1,3,2 for past 3 years. Over 50 and maxed out in grade pay.
1 and was cut, but I'm over 50
Performance cannot be a factor. To prove performance is not a factor the company included high performers in the layoffs. Interesting from a distance. For all practical purposes the names were pulled out of a hat.
3, I actually do not care what my suck ass score is. I did care about my performance and abilities to get the job done and was rewarded for above and beyond the call of duty in the past... The Past
Last three years: 3, 3, 1. Was told today I made the cut.
2
2!