Below are all the posts — topics as well as replies — that mention the hashtag #performance.
Mention #performance in your post to continue the discussion!
Where is NIke's destination eventurally, that is the question that has been floating around a lot in this platform.
As long as EH and upper management maintains this death march to the Death Valley, it will be in the teens.
Quite frankly, I was extremely disappointed that EH was not able to come out with new, clear direction after 18 months in the throne. Yeah, JD left sh-t load cr-p around but with EH's pay scale that is task that is included.
Measure employee performance/success by a metric of number of hours they are seated in the chair at office and report this monthly in the "Talent and Performance"?
A Joke at a Fortune 500 Company.
Remember when you could read the Company's Annual Report and know exactly how much the Company earned in the prior year?
What changed over the last month or so? We were at $50! I was optimistic that Dan was turning around our firm post layoff and new strategy. Our net add and cash flow numbers were impressive and further OpEx reductions + stock buy backs + dividends was meant to turbo charge our stock to ~$72. What happened? What changed? Does the street know something that we don't?
Looking through posts on here and by mine and my coworkers’ numbers, it seems the new dashboards are wildly inaccurate. I’ve seen my days count where I’ve had multiple half days in office due to appointments, my coworker who works in office 4x a week well beyond 6 hours everyday and they’re below 60% compliance, coworkers saying the dashboard has said they used PTO/ sick days when they hadn’t. The data is obviously not accurate across all employees for many reasons.
“Over 60% of time in office” is not clear and can be interpreted multiple ways. Is it 24 out of 40 hours? In that case then could you just choose to go in everyday for an avg of 4.8 hours to get the 24 or does it have to be 3 days for 8 hours? Like others mentioned too, what about if someone is working more than 40 hours. How would that factor into the final calc? Right now they claim they’re not using time to track in the FAQ but I bet they’re gonna pull some bs I’m a few months saying “in office days only count if you spent X amount of continuous hours connected to company IP”.
Is it the amount of days that gets over 60%, so for April there are 22 working days if no PTO/ sick then 22 x .6 is 13.2 so you need to come in 14 days to meet “over 60”? It also mentions “rolling average of three months” so if there are, hypothetically, 60 working days through April - June then you have to go 36 days in that window but then can you front load and just go 36 days in a row and then WFH the rest 24 days?
This is ridiculous for employees to have to meet a moving target that the company clearly can and will just change at any moment. The backtracking claiming “it was well known that it’s 3+ days a week” is d-mb. Everybody knew 11 days got you your 100% and the old dashboard reflected that. Most people are going to go the 11 and not a day more. Even for my coworker who goes 4 days a week is showing as non compliant when their metrics should be above 60% for every month.
Finance, IT and HR have 40-50% headcount reduction targets by 2030. Expect 5-10% "performance" cuts each year, very few backfills and a ROM 2028-2029.
Looks like adjustments will come much easier than expected…2 MLRP strikes within 5 years and you are to be separated…welcome to the jungle…
I posted my thoughts in a comment awhile back, here's my peon take on the state of things:
MGMT isn't held accountable; escape is just a re-org away.
There's zero vision at the top. JP/BH/GD are not the right guys by any metric. Our sales incentives are aligned such that sales will pressure RnD to continue hunting the same 20 banks with the same multi-year projects. That pressure will force RnD to acquiesce.
CIS continues to be a useless rube goldberg SaaS for ticket generation under their current leader.
All while leadership continues to say that we're looking to get leaner, and deliver at a higher volume etc. etc.
Within RnD we have principal developers who don't know how computers work. When I say this I mean the basics of networking, filesystems, algorithms.
I had Sr Principal dev ask me what DFS was.... this by itself is not the issue, but it certainly points to the issue: people are not held accountable for performance, nor are they expected to improve their technical acumen, and inversely, they are rewarded simply for staying.
IMO:
SAS should strive to be (in part) the AWS of data tools. There should have a simple portal such that customers can input their payment info, click on a given tool, and crank it up according to some set of configurable parameters. It should be seamless.
This will require:
CIS and RnD to merge
a real SRE program inside of the company (it's insane and an indictment of the company that no one I've spoken to in CIS has heard of the term SRE).
us to retain top talent, and purge dead weight.
sas would need to spend cycles reducing service footprint/consolidating services/improving big O performance. several gigs of RAM is insane for a login service. Not to mention the fragmentation of said service.
The same model should be followed for solutions, which means prodman will need to actually learn how to do their job. we have some of the most arrogant, yet ignorant, product managers in the business.
know your domain, know the market, and sell to that market. every solution can't do everything. boutique projects are fine, but that's not gonna move the needle.
there should be pre-configured, highly opinionated, solutions that can be delivered and adding value in under a month.
Curious to see the perspective from people around the company
My coworker was called into a meeting. They were informed of a low pega score. Despite meeting productivity and being a good employee, they felt accused of not working. They quit the next day. How does pega show someone not working when they are meeting production goals?
Hello my WF friends — I’m hoping to get some insight from hiring managers or recruiters on here. This may benefit others as well.
After many years of solid meets/exceeds performance, I ended up with an IM rating this past cycle. TLDR: my manager and I didn’t really click.
I’ve found a couple of positions in other areas that would actually be a promotion for me. I also have a positive history with one of the hiring managers, as she’s a former manager of mine.
My question is: would WF policy even allow me to be promoted into another role while in the IM “penalty box”? I don’t believe I’m on a formal PIP, so I don’t think I’m required to disclose last year’s IM when applying.
That said, I assume my IM rating would come up during the interview process. If so, I’m guessing the hiring manager would need to make a strong case to move forward with me, given that context.
Anyway, I’d appreciate any thoughts or experiences on this.
As our company is going through a tough time, I would like to propose the following ideas for saving costs:
• Pay Stephanie to do nothing. She has already proven that she creates negative value, so ensuring she does nothing will immediately increase the company's value.
• Move Bob to Cognizant, ideally to a low-cost location. This will allow him the opportunity to live the idea.
• Fire all the CTOs. Why do we need useless executives who have been unable to modernize our products for years? Replace them with AI bot. Productivity jump.
• Move Kelly to report to Koushik, so that both eventually leave. Huge savings.
Any idea you would propose?
the ai is failing and the sales team is getting the blame. Can’t sell a sh-t product bottom line
During Chambers' time, there was a very clear strategy and vision: to be number one or two in every product line that Cisco sells, combined with a vision to change the way we live, learn, and play. Today, there is no vision or strategy at Cisco. What is important is to maintain profit margins only. Over the past decade, Cisco has lost significant market share in every product line it sells, and in some of them it has long since ceased to be number one or two.
The layoffs keep happening over and over again but somehow the same useless people always remain. You know the type. The ones who've been here two decades, add nothing, and have mastered the art of hiding. They need to go, ASAP. Cut them and bring in people with current skills and actual energy. Fresh talent, not the same old faces doing nothing.
How can there be this many slackers still taking advantage of wfh? I hope the next series of cuts is purely for those that are not following policy. If management is serious about RTO, they should use their data to cleanly broom the folks that are not doing their part at this point and send a message. These cuts are long overdue. All of you real estate agents, photographers, off the books carpenters, and slackers in general could go and Ford would not miss a beat.
Everybody knows the abusers in their area - I personally like the analyst in our area that lives in a multi-million dollar house on the lake and comes into the office 2 days a week - Hey, she has a successful photography business to run!
Qualcomm employs over 52k with little or nothing to show for all that. Why do you guys need so many people to collect license royalties? Companies like Broadcom generate massive revenue/market-cap per employee. You guys are in the same space right?
So what is the problem with Qualcomm being in forever in the toilet?
Will they put you on the list if you don't complete your self evaluation? I don't understand the point of doing one if they plan to cut 10k jobs.
If swampers cannot hold or make any significant contributions to this company, why are they still around?
Has anyone heard any numbers for Q1 yet? I’ve heard they weren’t great, but no details.
Also hearing of a RIF mid April. But I always take that with a grain of salt. Just curious if anyone here has heard any rumblings?
Last quarter we made the numbers due to last minute unexpected deals and currency tailwinds
Looks like currency is now a headwind, anyone know how the numbers are looking ?
We are measured on metrics that don’t fully capture the work being done. You can be doing meaningful work and still look like you’re underperforming on paper. There’s a clear disconnect between effort and evaluation. I've seen people who were among our best get on the list of "underperformers" when nothing could be further from the truth. It’s honestly pretty frustrating.
Watching promotions happen makes you wonder whether performance is really the deciding factor or if knowing the right person is the trump card.
I got bad rating of DNM expectations. Am I gonna get fired with no severance or PIP or silent fire.
I am with the bank for 5 years and do not want to lose severance
Any help will be helpful for looking for jobs elsewhere.
It seems BNY is preparing for its next round of layoffs by trying to make people leave voluntarily (shock horror). I’ve been a people manager here for several years now and was told last week I will no longer be a people manager because I’m not senior enough (need to be Sr Dr or above), my staff are in a different location and there aren’t enough people in the team. Every time I hired I wasn’t able to hire in my location because it was ‘too expensive’, whilst at the same time new MDs and Sr Dr’s were being hired at ease. The team I’m in has reduced from 32 to 18 FTE over the last 18 months and we’ve not been allowed to replace anyone. This is a clear tactic by the company to get people at my level to leave by making us all utterly miserable, and if that fails they’ll just use it as an excuse to give a lower performance rating. They do something like this every time a layoff round is coming to get people to leave voluntarily and save them paying out. Got to hand it to them though, they really have created the most toxic and intolerable workplace that ever existed, so they are meeting their metrics in that regard and we all know how important metrics are at BNY.
Came from Ansys. I thought Ansys TC was pretty sh---y but now I understand that Synopsys is even worse.
As a manager, I participated some compensation planning and was shocked. Tell you what. RSU is bad. Very bad. Many positions above L4 are expected to received half of what they got last year at Ansys. Not everyone can get RSU even for very senior positions at L5
By numbers, JD grew top-line revenue from $37.4B to $51.4B (+37% overall). EH is driving a revenue contraction from $51.4B to a projected ~$46B (-10% decline).
Numbers don’t lie or drop tears. Winning!
When Brian got on stage, I heard someone say ‘what kind of BS today?’
It’s a good way to not have to say anything or face an audience unhappy with their raise when you hand out $9k in cash randomly. Is this normal?
To write a Charlie Scharf earnings call commentary, and co-pilot nailed it.
Replace Senior Management with ai, they're all just a bunch of group thinking robots anyway
T will term you for something and hide it under “performance” when they have no other reason to fire you. Also, people are being fired due to inaccurate office presence reports. Get yourself a lawyer. You may have a case.
FCRM/FCM remote OR employees were told by executive team, they would be displaced in October 2025, 4th quarter. That came around and they changed the date to the 1st quarter of 2026. Now into the 2nd quarter of 2026 with more empty promises and no displacement in sight. Prevent Ai not working as planned 😂 buggy program and they need to keep senior staff around to balance out the cascading CPH metrics. Also changed to IPH and lowered metrics because Fraud Agents are underperforming with a rushed Ai product.
Will there be warning if anything bad happens?
It is that time of year again when management suddenly becomes visible.
All year, there is little to no real contribution. No ownership. No meaningful involvement. As layoffs approach, the performance begins. More meetings. More noise. Sudden interest in high profile accounts. They attach themselves to work they did not do. They claim ownership of outcomes they did not drive. They speak about customers they do not understand.
This is not contribution. It is theater.
Everyone doing the real work can see it. The gap is obvious. The only reason it continues is because visibility is rewarded more than substance.
A textbook case of the Peter Principle. Competence is optional. Looking competent is enough to survive.
Every company lays off employees. But I see so much hatred for Waters regarding Layoff and toxic work culture? Why ?
How are layoffs decided ? Is it case by case based on performance ?
Or entire teams get laid off ?
Back to Reality.... Trump economy, War heading to " Over". Gas prices coming down. Stocks back in favor...Vz no execution.... honeymoon over, New External Execs sitting in group therapy saying how are we winning with DEI and no clue how to execute besides layoffs.
Record high revenue, destroyed budgeted expectations, kicking butt and taking names.
APRIL FOOLS!!!!!
Just think, it was trading near 170 five years ago. Today it’s trading at 45. Make your own conclusions.
Nike has disclosed that executive compensation includes ESG metrics, which explicitly include diversity outcomes. While the company doesn’t break out the exact weighting, market norms suggest ~10%–20% of annual bonuses are tied to these factors.
Using reasonable assumptions:
• ~385 VPs globally
• VP bonus: ~$100K–$500K
• ESG/diversity weighting: ~10%–20%
Implied diversity-linked bonus per VP:
• ~$10K (low)
• ~$30K–$50K (typical)
• Up to ~$100K
Estimated total annual payout:
• Low: ~$3.9M
• Most likely: ~$12M–$18M
• High: ~$38.5M
Midpoint:
$14M Annually
Why this matters:
At the midpoint, that’s roughly $14M (and could be much more) per year in incentives aligned to these outcomes at the VP level alone.
Bottom line:
A defensible estimate is that Nike directs ~$10M–$20M annually of VP incentive compensation toward diversity-linked metrics; raising legitimate questions about how heavily these targets are weighted relative to other performance priorities.
This post uses only publicly available information, and observational analysis derived from such. Further augmented by published industry trends.
🚨 Introducing Our New Senior Leader Management Guide 🚨
“If you can’t lead… just list.”
Why waste years developing leadership skills when you can simply do the Optum method, rules for thee and not me.
Step 1: Lead with Lists
Not sure what your team does? Perfect. You’re exactly who this guide is for.
Just make a list. Lists = leadership. It’s basically the same thing.
Step 2: Stop Meeting Your Team
Historically, leaders wasted countless hours talking to employees, understanding workflows, and building trust.
Thankfully, we’ve evolved and are 100x
As a leader, you already know what’s happening. Why verify? That sounds like work.
Step 3: Need More Collaboration? Easy.
Create a list of people who don’t come into the office, don’t worry you don’t need to fly into town to check we can use AI to send you.
Bo-m—collaboration problem solved.
Step 4: Eliminate “Old Leadership” Habits
In the past, being effective required showing up, engaging, and making hard decisions.
Now? Just update the list, you never need to come to town, or if you are low level leader you can just stay in your fish-tank office, no need to actually meet the team.
Step 5: AI Adoption Strategy
Becoming an AI-first company is simple:
And don’t worry if you can send an email or use AI to write a sentence you are the leaders we are looking for! —
true leadership is about vision, not ability or knowledge .
Step 6: Performance Management
Forget nuanced feedback.
Just categorize people into:
Step 7: Communication Excellence
Why overcomplicate messaging?
Every announcement can be summarized as:
“Per my last list…”
Step 8: Strategic Planning
Q1 Goal: Make a list
Q2 Goal: Refine the list
Q3 Goal: Make a new list
Q4 Goal: Wonder why nothing improved (add self to list, just kidding leader don’t go on these lists)
Remember: leadership isn’t about people, context, or outcomes.
It’s about maintaining a clean, well-organized list.
Leaders stay safe in your offices or if we care about you remote.
SAP is under a lot of financial pressure and the only way to fix this is by mass layoffs. Basically, we are investing too much in stock buybacks, AI (data centers and development) and bonuses. The executive board wants to axe the last one and increased the first two. So the only solution is layoffs. Oracle fired 20000 people yesterday and SAP is supposed to follow suit to "remain at a competitive advantage". The new works council is already in negotiations regarding this. SAP wants 12000 layoffs worldwide of which 5000 will be in European hubs. But this is kept hush hush. I feel like speaking out because I am tired of these bull$hit games. The biggest problem here is middle management and executives who want more bonuses for themselves and want to use third party contractors instead of full-time employees. They are the ones pushing for the layoffs. So don't listen to your area executives when they say that times are rough. If SAP didn't insist on share buybacks or invest too much in AI that is not producing any results for customers, we would not have such a deficit. This narrative needs to be fixed. I am tired of our CEO, CFO, executives and middle management saying that employee salaries and bonuses are the third highest expense for SAP. That is a good thing and not a bad thing. Employees create and sell good software not AI. Some of the managers pushing for this already have salaries of more than €200000 per year and still want more. Say no to layoffs. Talk back to your manager if they want to give you a bad rating. If you have done the work, you should get good performance ratings. They want to use bad performance ratings to fire employees or pay them less.
If you had invested $1000 in nike stock back in 2015, you would have about $1000 now.
If you had bought $1000 of Nike back in 2015 and sold at the peak in 2021 you would have had roughly $3673.
If you invested $1000 in Apple stock in 2015, you would have $8,233 now.
If you invested $1000 in Amazon stock in 2015, you would have $12,000 now.
If you invested $1000 in Tesla stock in 2015, you would have $27,692 now.
If you invested $1000 in Nvidia in 2015, you would have $347,916 now.