Unfortunately, IBM still uses the despised "normal distribution" performance rating system, at the close of the performance year each employee is stacked – you can be rated as a top contributor (5% of all employees), above average contributor (15%), average contributor (about 75%), and bottom or under-performing contributor (can be up to 5% and your career here is more or less done).
This bell shaped curve is very difficult to apply in the R&D world, where you may have a ton of members of any given team working long and hard hours, and end up being "average contributors" at the end of the year – that kind of does not make sense if you hire the best and the brightest and IBM claims. So, since the curve HAS TO BE ENFORCED, it’s likely you’ll be flagged as ‘average’.
OK, now that you think about this, you may say, but that’s OK… Yes, but only if IBM didn't discontinued giving raises, bonuses and financial incentives for all folks below ‘above average’. I've had a consistent "above average" rating in the last four years – good, you may think. But they were giving me a 1.75% annual average. So, had I’ve done a decent and high quality job, I would have gotten nothing, but since I was really busting my ass and was lucky, I got a whopping 7% raise over last year – keep in mind, it’s very hard to land in the ‘above average’ bucket as the competition is fairly strong.
This is done by design, they want attrition, and they want to cut headcount without having to pay severance which also is deteriorating currently. They also, want folks who remain to take on higher workloads as a ‘hiring freeze’ has been imposed (this will depend on your group).