Those with IR will be gone, look around bit 2-4% will be gone.
If you are the laggard when ranked with your peers you are gone.
Won't matter you are good team player or how hard you work. All about during that closed door ranking with your SLM and FLMs their preception.
Every groups always meets distribution for IR and SL4 and SL5.
So figure a silient 2-7% are gone in the next couple weeks.
GPTW
GPTW, HR troll will say "don't like it? Find a job somewhere else"
My manager solicited 360 feedback on me with the goal of finding things that he could use against me. Ask enough people and someone will have something vaguely negative to say about you, especially if the people who are asked view themselves as competitors vs. team mates. And the person asking is fishing for negativity.
A couple of my co-workers tipped me off to this. Could have been any of us.
GPTW
@2kaf - Last time I participated in the every 6-month MFT/LFT was Nov 2015. I took VSP in 2016. Do the math.
Would you like to answer the original question?
@2kaf - Do you work at Intel, you would have known then.
@aau Don't talk nonsense! A lot of excellent performers were let go because they did not kiss a-- while sub-par performers remained. Stop the BS!
@2ibq - there's no MFT/LFT? When did that happen?
@2bfs. Well summarized what is happening now.
@fyr - and what is the feedback mechanism for managers? There's no Mft/Lft so how do you get your feedback to work upon?
@1nlw and several others have been spot on, to which I will add:
1) Intel used to solicit detailed, cross-checked 360 feedback. That degraded into supposedly doing continuous performance improvement but in fact has become doing little to no verification of employee performance through soliciting stakeholder input
2) This has allowed subjectivity, butt-kissing and cronyism to become much stronger factor in Focal results than it used to be in the 90s and early 2000s
3) The above combined with the harsh job cuts and questionable promotion of too many VP-and-higher managers has produced the toxic culture that exists today
It's going to take new executive leadership to fix this problem (and Murthy doesn't count here).
"And everyone at Intel has made a conscious choice to stay with a company that keeps "raising the bar" "
Yup, raising the bar continually for the rank and file, while lowering the same continually for the top tier. Failed acquisitions, continually delayed products, lost markets, opportunities, customers, falling wages, ever lowering employee morale, . . .
Despite this self touted "raising the bar" culture, the company seems to be failing misetsbly. Care to explain?
Do you know that Intel no longer figures any where in the best companies, by growth or employee rating. Analysts have been downgrading it continuously. Seems like "raising the bar" to intimidate employees with micro-management and a constant fear and threat of layoffs are the only aces left in the sleeves of this stupendously failed Management
agree with the common theme--mgrs. rule and if u do not impress them / become their pets u will be at the bottom no matter how many awards/days/hours etc. u work.
that said rest assures there will be no act like actions for the next 3 years by 2020 ..if BK does not the growth or the Facebook/Google like mojo there will be one. Current strategy is mgrs will document as usual the lower performers but assumption is due to last years and year before action folks will be under true pressure to improve..ir/SL4 and 5. Now if they repeat in the next year or the year then if actions happen in 2019/20 they will be game ...HR/legal have laid the groundwork no pckgs. just std 8 weeks and out.
So relax and enjoy .."don't worry zero action this year (decent bonus)"--comes from someone friends with SA (LTD top exec).
As someone who was hired from the outside into an environment characterized by nonsense goals, constantly changing priorities, inept and feuding managers and a lack of a business model, I came to quickly realize that Intel culture punishes those who ask questions or exercise initiative.
Success comes from appearing to the bosses to be the hero in delivering arbitrary deadlines on projects that everyone knows but won't admit are meaningless and doomed from the start. Such appearances come at the expense of others on the "team" who are portrayed (by the "hero") as being either lesser contributors or, worse, supportive of projects that might not be doomed.
But how to get Intel focused on working on the right things (based on having a real strategy informed by customer needs, Intel competencies/resources and real market / ecosystem knowledge... and not executive whim, BS or Bain "experts"...or I guess now, Aicha!)...and not just wasting everyone's time?
GPTW
@aau: It is almost never about performance, it is not now and it certainly wasn't in '15 or '16. Individual performance can be and is dealt with any time of the year.
@fyr: Odd quote (not that I don't believe it's true). Intel is not raising the bar, just look at what's hired now. Seems to be infected by terminal juniority, those with marketable skills should consider their options carefully, there is no lack of demand for skills elsewhere.
@MRvJmTn-fyr And what a horrible, self-defeating, toxic culture it is!
"Raising the bar" assumes that there is some kind of a measurable, consistent, maybe even relevant and valid measure of performance for an employee (or, even better, a group of employees, so that there's some comparability). As if.
In reality, managers decide who they want to give a low rating and fit the evidence to try to justify it. Let's not act as if Intel has some great approach for assessing performance or the competent, capable, trained managers to execute such an approach. It's a political snake pit...
@aau I am a manager myself, and what you are saying does not change the fact that it is the lowest performers who are ranked at the bottom and who get IRs. Yes, of course, that means that the same performance that was "Successful" one year will be "Improvement Required" next year, but that is of course Intel's plan: Push people to perform better.
Is that the right way to motivate people? No, of course not. Quite the opposite. But everyone knows Intel's philosophy and is free to leave.
I am not defending it. Just pointing out that in the end, performance is still what determines the ratings to the very largest extent. And everyone at Intel has made a conscious choice to stay with a company that keeps "raising the bar" (direct quote from many HR presentations).
And if your manager is not able to defend a good rating for you in calbration rounds with other managers, then you didn't give him enough ammunition to defend you. Intel culture is all about making sure that you have visible achivements, that you document your achievements and make sure your manager knows about them.
Welcome to the hunger games what a place where you fire people based on a distribution...
GPTW
As a manager who played the distribution game, don't kid yourself that is is all about performance. The low performers got let go in both the 2015-2016 redeployment actions. That means that good workers are now targeted to fall below the distribution line and go into the IR bucket, or the dreaded lower stock levels. It is not about your performance, it is about how well your manager can defend it amongst peers as you are ranked. I have personally seen good performers fall to the bottom of the list due to bad management. Intel hires the best and routinely turns 5-10% a year to low performers via the ranking methodology. Only the paranoid survive, be prepared!
Actually, it's all about how hard you work and whether you are a good team player. Because if other people on your team work harder and are better team players, then you will be the one with the IR.
But low performers always want to fool themselves into believing that there is some random factor in there, or something unachievable that their peers magically achieve.