Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

How many of you got ssl4 because you switched to other team?

In which team was most part of the yr spent?

Generally the new team mgr would do the focal and cant ding you with l4 saying you are new to the job. This is against the focal guidelines

by
| 2584 views | | 18 replies (last April 30, 2016) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+H9iSEMw

18 replies (most recent on top)

Got hit last year for that reason.

Accepted new job in december of 2014. Transition in January 2015. Was full time with new team starting February 1st. So obviously my old team did my FOCAL.

I got a successful, but do you think they gave me SSL3. Of course not. I didn't complain, I was just glad to be out of the old group.

My new manager was very happy with me (job was a grade higher than my actual grade,) but there was nothing he could do to save me.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1zik+H9iSEMw

Ssl4 or 5 is deceitful compensation scheme intel invented to trap employees who could be disposed when it needs to younger or cheaper labors. It's a way to empower its managers to purge the people they don't like.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1hpd+H9iSEMw

I'm not an Intel employee but I have read a lot of people make comments about ssl4, ssl5. Can someone explain to me the rating levels so I can follow the conversation/replies? Thanks!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @avg+H9iSEMw

Yes, this happens. Happened to me. One year in a new position. Just walked out yesterday, simply because of that. 13 of 16 review cycles above average. Then this. One L4. Nice.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jpi+H9iSEMw

Yeah, your manager is given an easy way to purge you if you are not useful for him/her. Make sure you work for one with integrity or one who considers you safe and useful.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kkh+H9iSEMw

A lot of cases happen the other way around - you are given ssl4/5 because your manager doesn't like you for some reason (not necessarily job-related) but you like to stay and want to continue to improve.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rll+H9iSEMw

Spent only Q4 of 2015 with new manager - got SSL4 and zero increment. Old mgr gave Successful rating and left the pay discussion to the new manager and I got the peanuts above. Looks like the new manager utilised the budget on existing team members and had nothing left for me. never realised that RSU stock level will have such a huge impact

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jur+H9iSEMw

Switched over to a collaborative org, that was global and received successful but SL5 , manager only had me for the 4 th quarter in 2015. Steer away from global, collaborative groups, they're easier to cut heads

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @asi+H9iSEMw

Got new job in September, old manager asked for a long transition to complete work and prevailed. Moved to new team in Jan, but Old manager did the focal. Gave me SSL4 and I am out! Essentially the old manager gave me a low SSL because I left. New manager would not have given me low stock, but my transition got pushed out saying I was critical to the project!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @djx+H9iSEMw

whoever is manager of record as of 12/31/XXXX (the last date in the range for which the focal tool pulls performance data) is the one who is responsible for your assessment and hands over to your new manager to enter into the Focal tool, in some cases the ee will appear in both thee losing and gaining managers' queues in the tool with an "exception" flag, in some cases the ee only appears in one or the other queue. For the latter scenario, the managers can contact HR, HR has the ability to go into the Focal tool with admin access and can move the ee into the correct manager queue (current manager). The stock/Focal budget that pays for the increase comes out of the current manager's Focal budget which is why many gaining managers assign low SSL, because they attempt to spread their budget as best they can for the people they managed the previous year and who are still on their team, but tend to misuse the process not understanding the negative consequences it has on the ee's performance record. This is why it's imperative that managers have proper training about the process prior to executing Focal - sadly, many managers skip the training and the consequence is what you are all seeing now...good ees impacted because of manager incompetence.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @htu+H9iSEMw

Moved to another team mid year. Focal was done by the new manager who promoted me in 6 months. I would have not been promoted in my older team, because the manager just wanted to promote people who livksd his a$$, I believe managers should be rated by their mft's and also people giving them low points need to be interviewed by HR to see if these managers get good mft feedback just because of a$$ licking employees or if it's actually true. There are some pretty bad 1st and 2nd level managers out there that get away so easily not doing this job. I hope you guys who are my message give reallly low scores to your manager the next mft so that they are licked out before you are

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @exv+H9iSEMw

you

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ada+H9iSEMw

me

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rei+H9iSEMw

No worries. TONS of opportunities in the IP game. Just plan and deliver what they want.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @lax+H9iSEMw

Well..good luck..if you are in the Bay area..can land a job pretty soon.

Intel should get rid of the curve system..too many mgrs use it unfairly...

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @nos+H9iSEMw

I switched right before focal. The old mgr does the payout. Unfortunately, that clown was pissed that I left and had his way. They even negotiated that I stay three more weeks to get critical bugs fixed, which I did. Honestly, I am thankful I am out of that hell hole of insanity.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gca+H9iSEMw

Why did the old team mgr do the payout? Did you spend most part of the yr with the old team? Ideally the new team mgr should be doing the payout.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ofp+H9iSEMw

Yup. Last year performance was, imo, stellar. My old team mgr did the payout though and I got stiffed, but so did Intel. Their loss.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gsz+H9iSEMw

Post a reply

: