#performancemanagement

When you and your manager have an obviously broken working dynamic, when some people who dislike you influence your manager, when you’re deliberately given assignments designed to rank you , PIP communication itself is firm from day one and their body language shows zero positivity, when they hand you a long list of vague expectations, monitor every move, invade your privacy, and openly discuss your situation with others, and when they assign “coaches” to you just to build a case ... you’re being set up to fail.

But when a manager tells you it’s okay that you were ranked in a new CL and that you can work through it together, when expectations are clear, when documentation is minimal or none, when they protect your privacy, put you on visible projects, give you meaningful roles, and advocate for you .... they’re preparing to pass you.

All it takes is everyone or the majority saying they will not be participating in it anymore and there is nothing they can do. They can't NSI everyone! Spread the word and make them stop!

Thousands of Google employees have signed a petition demanding improved layoff protections. The Alphabet Workers Union is advocating for severance packages at least matching previous terms and the offer of voluntary buyouts before involuntary layoffs. They also seek the option of extended paid leave instead of lump-sum severance, particularly for visa holders. Additionally, the union opposes a quota-based performance rating system they believe unfairly impacts employees. These demands come amidst a significant increase in tech industry layoffs, with AI restructuring cited as a major driver.

Mountain View, California

https://hrexecutive.com/google-employees-demand-severance-guarantees-as-tech-layoffs-near-157000/

So there is a new tactic that everyone should know about. Since performance management was released, managers have been in touch with HR to understand how they can give more money to their reports that are their friends or family. And the only solution from HR is this -> employees that are seen as critical to business needs and have a legal offer letter from another company will get a salary hike above the normal SAP limitations to match their offer.

So basically, if you have a friend who has a company, ask them to create an AI-related job for you and make you and offer - it has to be a written offer and cannot be just an email or verbal confirmation. And then your managers starts the process by creating an HR ticket and getting an exception for you and increasing your salary.

But the caveat is this - HR has been asked to reject as many of these as possible.

For a handful of roles where a manager is well connected within SAP, they will get HR to approve this and give 10% or more salary hikes. For almost all other roles, they will decline and then HR will flag that you are not committed to working at SAP and find ways to get rid of your role.

So if your area executive or T5 manager of managers or your T4/T5 manager is asking you to find a good role and get an offer and use it to increase your salary, DO NOT DO THAT. A lot of area executives are peddling this as an idea to work around performance management limitations. It is a farce.

This only works if that manager has already made a deal with HR. Otherwise you will not get an increased salary but be asked to join that other job. HR is doing this to easily identify people who can be laid off without a severance. They are also using sick leave and AI usage data to decide who should be put on a performance improvement plan and laid off subsequently.

Be careful of the sneaky HR and area executives and managers.

Can Execs get PIP’d or demoted to Non-Exec due to poor ranking?

Each cycle has a target percentage that must land in MLRP (NI + NSI). That percentage isn’t identical across all organizations, but the weighted average across the whole function has to match whatever HR planned for that year. Is it possible for some teams in some orgs to have zero NI or NSI in a cycle?

George Kurian's legacy won't be maybe hitting $10B in revenue at some point. His legacy, along with Beth O'Callahans, will be constant layoffs and total decimation of the NetApp culture that had been built over the years. Beth's legacy will be the same since she is a big driver behind the new forced distribution performance rewards and the in-office mandates. Sadly, the direct reports to them just blindly follow along.

Watch the Cisco Beat today...
They have rediscovered serious performance monitoring and evaluation and participation in the bullsh-t side of it is becoming mandatory. As a result they are moving it out of all the clunky tools they have today--into a new tool. Which is???

WEBEX!!

Yup, Webex. Likely so that they can use AI to run it all in the backend (which they own/control). So, from now on, you'll be effectively reporting to an AI tool that will evaluate your performance against the latest/greatest HR fashions.

Which means that next time they need to get rid of x'000 people they can ask AI for the list. Which is probably not good news for middle managers.

Complete the sentence.

Just commented this in another thread, but thought may be worth mentioning.

Based on other people’s posts today, it’s confirmed the MLRP policy change is being applied retroactively (2 NSI in 5 years = termination). Instead of it being effective starting this year when announced and the tracking beginning from 2025 performance forward, they are pulling in past performance for 5 years back.

What’s stopping them from saying next year, “anyone that has receive 3 Very Good performance in the past 10 years will now be eligible for a PIP”?

Guess I’m a big d-mb d-mb for thinking they would treat this similar to how the US constitution prohibits ex post facto laws for criminal conduct.

Well, it finally happened. Got called into a “quick sync” with my manager Monday morning. HR was already in the room, which tells you everything. They slid the PIP paperwork across the table, and before I could even read the “performance expectations” section, they informed me that because this was my second PIP in a five-year window, company policy allowed them to skip the improvement period entirely. Effective immediately. I was walked back to my desk by security to grab my jacket and my kid’s drawing off the monitor. Badge deactivated before I hit the parking garage. Eleven years, and I was out of the building in under 40 minutes. Some context for anyone who hasn’t been through the Exxon performance machine: the forced ranking system means somebody is always in the bottom bucket. Doesn’t matter how the team performs. My first PIP in 2022 came after a reorg where my entire project got shelved so nothing to show for the year because there was nothing left to show. I survived it, “closed it out successfully,” and naively thought that was behind me.

Management is rolling out a brand-new "Competency Model" framework for upcoming mid-year reviews that completely changes the rules of our jobs right after a massive layoff. They are introducing a mandatory "AI Competency" metric, requiring everyone to use AI tools daily and even "configure simple agents" just to be rated as "Effective" in their roles. This is a transparent move to force a smaller, surviving workforce to use automation to absorb all the leftover work from our departed colleagues. By rushing this out by August 31 alongside mid-year "goal adjustments," management is building a paper trail that redefines what it means to do your job well. If you don't adopt these new automated workflows, they can mark you as underperforming even if you are doing your core job perfectly, creating a loop hole for them to shift to performance-based terminations instead of layoffs so they can dodge paying severance down the road. Just when you think they can’t go any lower, they now want to take away severance pay

More information will be shared via emails regarding Project Fuji which is actually a continuation of Project Mongoose but with a different name. Lots of discussions between HR and the Betriebsrat this time and the HR definitely won.

The works council just approved the layoff of 8000 of 14000 jobs that Christian Klein and Dominic Asam wanted. This will happen gradually and all hiring managers are supposed to give preference to internal candidates first. Anyone who has been found to not use AI in the last many months or isn't deemed AI ready will have to undergo compulsory training or face layoffs. They are going to add more sections in Performance Management and force all employees to have an AI related goal. Managers make the final decision on whether employees are AI ready or not and this will impact the HOW and WHAT scores.

But this is devastating news nonetheless. I can't wait for my non-technical development manager to tell me that I am not burning enough AI tokens on something frivolous. She uses them all the time to create presentation graphics and vibe coding and none of that is actually creating any value for SAP customers. But she's an AI star now and actually "coaches" developers on how to use AI in day-to-day life.There are also discussions ongoing with the supervisory board to increase share buybacks and the dividend in the upcoming quarter. HR wants to use "any money saved through layoffs and performance management" to be used towards this.SAP is on track to become one of the worst companies to work for.

I joined Tech going on a year now, and I have been working to improve accountability and address long-standing performance issues. Not to be punitive, but because it’s better to deal with low performance directly than end up laying off good employees later.

My biggest frustration has been HR and specifically, employee relations supporting Tech. It’s hard to get a clear answer on what action to take, harder to get a response, and when you do, the guidance often contradicts what leaders in other departments are being told.

I know they’re under pressure too, and I’ve tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. But when managers can’t get consistent support, it makes leading my teams a lot harder. At some point, that becomes an HR leadership issue. I hope their senior leadership is paying attention.

My manager literally said in a meeting that she has never given an Exceeds. Seems to track as before joining this company, I've always gotten very high performance marks but since coming here, it's always Meets. Does anyone have similar stories? I only started reporting to this team this year.

More than half of my team is not meeting productivity due to lack of work. We’re all getting verbal coaching done. Our PL just said in order to not be laid off we need to meet but it’s impossible. All of this is just crazy to me.

Or is it done throughout the year and is person-based? We had a PIP season in my last company, and it was seldom related to performance. I'm just wondering if it's the same here.

Do you or your team have to install WorkIQ? Company is using WorkIQ to get rid of employee making silly excuses.

Many large companies still use some version of forced ranking, stack ranking, or quota-based performance management where a certain percentage of employees end up in the bottom bucket regardless of overall team performance.

Supporters say it drives accountability and prevents complacency.

Critics argue it creates:

• Internal competition instead of collaboration
• Risk aversion and politics
• Managers spending time managing rankings instead of developing people
• Employees focusing on visibility rather than impact
• Anxiety that reduces long-term engagement

If an organization is profitable, meeting business objectives, and retaining strong talent, what would actually convince leadership to eliminate forced ranking and PIPs as a routine management tool?

Would it take:

• Better performance metrics?
• Evidence of lower turnover?
• A major labor shortage?
• Executive leadership that came up through different systems?
• Or is forced ranking simply too useful for managing headcount and compensation budgets?

For those who have worked at companies that abandoned stack ranking, what replaced it and did it work better?

Interested in hearing experiences from both managers and individual contributors.

Arby: We Have The Meats
Wells: Meets or No Meets

Lee Raymond’s Famous Quotes on Employee Performance at ExxonMobil

Lee Raymond, CEO of ExxonMobil from 1999 to 2005, was known for his strong emphasis on merit-based systems, hard work, and the role of competition in driving performance. While he did not publish a single “employee performance” manifesto, several of his public statements reflect his philosophy on how people should be rewarded and motivated in business.

Key quotes related to performance and merit:

“The market system requires that people be committed and willing to work hard. Inherent with that is what I call a merit system, which I think gives people the greatest opportunity.”

This statement underscores his belief that performance should be tied to effort and results, with merit being the primary driver of advancement and rewards.

“The main professional responsibility of a person in business is business. He or she must be successful in economic terms, but always within an ethical framework.”

Raymond stressed that business success—measured by performance and profitability—is the core duty, with ethics as a guiding constraint weheartquotes.com.

“It is important to remember that all business has an impact on the lives of real people.”
This reflects his view that performance should be evaluated not just on numbers, but also on its tangible effects on people and communities weheartquotes.com.

“Ethical conduct is something that becomes inherent in an organization over a long period of time.”

While not directly about performance metrics, this implies that a culture of integrity supports sustainable, high-performing organizations weheartquotes.com.

Overall philosophy:

Raymond’s approach to employee performance was rooted in a meritocratic, results-oriented mindset. He believed that hard work, competition, and measurable success were the keys to both personal advancement and organizational success, while maintaining ethical standards as a foundation.

If you need a concise summary for a presentation or discussion, you could frame it as:

“At ExxonMobil, we reward those who are committed, willing to work hard, and deliver results—within an ethical framework. Merit, not favoritism, should be the standard for performance.”

My site is pushing hard on metrics for client facing phone roles in brokerage. They are putting any below the national average on key metrics like CPH on an “unofficial” PIP. So, lots of people getting put on a PIP.

I’m hearing from other site leaders this is a strategy to push reps up or out, documenting everything and focusing more on tenured reps.

Anyone else affected by this or seen this play out before?

I am put on a PIP. The second line manager is according to the HR message the evaluator. First line manager is supposed to support.
First line manager creates hard to achieves goals.
The normal thing would be that the second line manager gets his own opinion. However 1st says he is in charge and I have not directly reached out to 2nd line.

How others have experienced it.

I have been told by my manager that we'll have another round and it will be quick. Notifications will be sent out first half of July.

I have not been here at Intel for long. Are new hires usually targeted in such CPMs?

So now, instead of mid years, we can all expect two required check-in meetings both to occur in june and july.

No feedback is solicited from the employee for this, and your manager can only rate you as 'meets' or 'does not meet.' There will be a dashboard about how you are trending based on no metrics available for the general population to see.

In the stacked ranking world that we all still live in they have removed exceeds and consistently exceeds because those don't exist anymore. As for consistently does not meet, you're just sh--e out of luck and fired. Instead you either fail, or you're acceptable.

No path to improvement, no mention of coaching or development. Just a very easy way to get rid of people not liked. It does not help. The article is written like sh--e and probably using m dash prompts because its incoherent, just like me. Fu-k you, WF.

There's growing chatter about people being cut due to less token usage.

If you weren't heavily using your copilot, it's being seen as "you're not growing" and "adapting" to new technology.

To me it's seems mo--nic,
It's another metric of punishing people who are efficient while people who used dev assist for simply changing a label on UI are being rewarded.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison: "Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on". It seems SAP is going in the same direction.

Our uptime on MS Teams and meeting time is already tracked. Management has also started to track browsing behavior using WalkMe which is now installed on all SAP computers. An HR colleague told me that they also tracking how often we come to office and work from home. And HR is discussing with the Betriebsrat how to connect these with Performance Management. And they are planning to trial AI cameras at some offices that will show how much time different colleagues spend in meetings and on their computer and lunch. All of this "surveillance" was included in new SAP policy updates.

Truth be told, I don't like this at all. The idea that I might get less appraisal and bonus because I had more wfh days or less Teams meetings than colleagues is appalling. A lot of work and meetings we still do are offline and that cannot be captured by these AI cameras so well. All of this seems so dystopian but several tech companies are copying Oracle and want this now.

For those of you in IT&V who have been ranked and yanked, what was your experience? Any signs ahead of time? Particular day of the week?

so have they officially eliminated opps for contribution statements and feedback from peers (things that supposedly used to mean a lot). any office notice of the change in performance management or is this a big steamroll?

Has anyone ever seen/have had experience with termination due to performance outside the annual PA process, i.e. not talking about safety or ethics violations kind of events

Coworker was upset that her boss was escalating an informal warning she received last month to a formal warning. I asked her if that’s a PIP and she said she was told that there are no PIP’s. Is this true? Is she sc--wed? She said her manager told her to meet with her more frequently to discuss anything. She said manager seems to be supportive of legitimately helping and actually wanted her to take over some work from another coworker.

Seems to me that this may be their due diligence to letting her go, but why have her take over more work if they want to let her go?

My manager, who can't stand me for some reason, has been working overtime to find faults with my work, so I'm guessing there's a PIP in my future. In my last company, PIP meant you might as well leave right away. Is it the same here? Should I start looking for something else right away?

I was just informed that it’s being recommended that I be placed on a coaching plan. I wanted to better understand the expectations and implications of this process. Specifically, should I view this as developmental support, or does failure to meet the outlined metrics potentially put my employment at risk?

Meta's problems cant be solved by current leadership. Its time for Priscilla Chan to step down as CEO.

Most of us hold meta stock either directly or indirectly. This stock will go the way of cisco, ebay, yahoo if changes are not made and soon!

Nepotism has largely captured large swath of the company. Performance reviews no longer mater in those orgs. pip's are unheard of especially If you share the same ethnicity as your manager - you are often safer than safe. You enjoy large refreshes, fast easy promotions and high performance ratings. In this org, credit often belongs to someone else that cant speak your mother language.

For those not in the protected class. Wondering why they were let go despite exceeded expectations rating. You know why! Do you joke in the same language at lunch with your metamates ? This probably always felt off. You will never be in their tribe. You will never be one of them. Your manager can put you on pip and not think twice. Because you just don't feel like a team player -- because you can't joke with them at lunch.

Innovation is largely dead at meta. the company has been captured by a protected class due to nepotism of low performers that will never ever be pip'd. They are bleeding the company dry both of treasure and IP to give to mother country. Just simply running out the clock waiting for their green card in hopes the latter comes first.

Credit:

https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/ex-manager-sues-capital-one-alleges-forced-ranking-drove-layoff-pick/576317

UNITED STATES

Employment law
Ex-manager sues Capital One, alleges "forced ranking" drove layoff pick
Cybersecurity manager claims calibration sessions, not performance, decided who lost their job

Ex-manager sues Capital One, alleges "forced ranking" drove layoff pick
By Tez Romero
22 May 2026
Share
facebook sharing buttontwitter sharing buttonlinkedin sharing button
A 56-year-old Black cybersecurity manager is suing Capital One, claiming a hidden "forced ranking" system pushed him out under the cover of a layoff.

That is the central claim in Hickman v. Capital One Financial Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-00450 (E.D. Va.), filed May 21, 2026, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. John Hickman, who spent 12 years at the bank and finished his career as a Manager, Cyber Technical on Capital One's "Watch Tower" cybersecurity team, says his October 2023 termination had less to do with performance than with race and age.

For HR leaders, the filing reads like a tour through the pressure points of modern performance management: calibration sessions, coaching plans, mid-year reviews, and reduction-in-force selection criteria — all of them, Hickman alleges, bent toward a predetermined outcome.

Hickman says he received "Strong Performance" ratings on every mid-year and end-of-year review from his end-of-year 2019 evaluation through 2022, with no documented concerns and no change in duties. Then, at a February 2, 2023 meeting, he was told his 2022 year-end rating was "Inconsistent." The complaint says the written feedback was largely positive but ended with a line that he "did not exhibit manager-level strengths relative to his peers."

That phrasing, the filing argues, gives away the game. Hickman alleges the downgrade was the product of Capital One's "forced ranking" — what the bank internally calls "calibration" and "distribution" — under which, he claims, at least 15% of employees must land at "Inconsistent" or "Below Strong" regardless of actual performance. He also points to the company's own guidance describing calibrations as "a time for leaders to demonstrate [Capital One's] commitment to Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging," language he says is at odds with what happened to him.

The coaching plan that followed, according to the filing, was delayed, packed with nearly two dozen vague deliverables, and at one point flagged "Communication" as a problem area — even though his year-end review had rated his communication "Strong." Hickman says he met every expectation by late May 2023. Instead of the policy-required outcome notice, he was told on July 24, 2023 that he had been selected for a reduction in force effective October 1, 2023. The complaint also alleges that Capital One quietly withheld an unfavorable mid-year review to make him RIF-eligible, and that his manager was instructed by Associate Relations not to deliver mid-year reviews to anyone tapped for the cuts.

The age numbers, drawn from what the filing says is Capital One's own OWBPA disclosure, are the part HR readers will likely linger on. Within the Manager, Cyber Technical population considered, 14.3% of employees 50 and older were selected, compared with 7% of those under 40. Across all roles considered, the rates were 4.8% (50+), 5.8% (40+), and 2.8% (under 40). The decisional unit, Hickman adds, was limited to employees hired before January 1, 2022 — a cutoff he says skewed older.

Hickman, who earned $175,263 plus a bonus opportunity of up to $24,000, is seeking back pay, compensatory, liquidated, and punitive damages, and has demanded a jury trial.

The allegations have not been tested in court. Capital One has not yet filed a response, and no judge has ruled on any of the claims.

LATEST NEWS
Ca--abis ban for flight crew: when workplace safety overrides legal rights
Supreme Court hands employers a costly loss on multiemployer pension withdrawal liability
First Circuit revives political discrimination case after lower court overreach

Free newsletter
Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up-to-date with the world of HR. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from HRD America.
Enter your Email address here

LATEST NEWS
Ca--abis ban for flight crew: when workplace safety overrides legal rights
Ca--abis ban for flight crew: when workplace safety overrides legal rights
Supreme Court hands employers a costly loss on multiemployer pension withdrawal liability
Supreme Court hands employers a costly loss on multiemployer pension withdrawal liability
First Circuit revives political discrimination case after lower court overreach
First Circuit revives political discrimination case after lower court overreach

Free newsletter
Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up-to-date with the world of HR. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from HRD America.
Enter your Email address here

Companies
People
Glossary
Authors
Newsletter
Consent Preferences
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Terms & Conditions
About us
Contact us
Sitemap
RSS
HRD America Twitter
Copyright © 2026 KM Business Information US, Inc

For code contributors, there’s metrics involved now. Even within tiers of needs improvement, meets, or exceeds, they have top, middle, and low rankings. Basically tracking commits from forked branches of mainstream repos. I’m sure they used this as part of the layoff decisions.

I really value being managed to modern seller metrics, it gives me a clear sense of accomplishment and keeps me motivated. The structured performance coaching plans also make me feel invested in and supported as a seller, which ultimately drives me to perform at a higher level.

TCS has instructed managers to classify 5% of employees in the lowest performance category. This directive applies to the latest appraisal cycle. The move has generated concerns about potential new layoffs. This follows a previous retrenchment of approximately 2% of its workforce. The company had previously planned to let go of 12,200 employees in fiscal year 2026.

https://www.ndtvprofit.com/business/tcs-asks-managers-to-put-5-staff-in-band-d-stoking-fears-of-fresh-layoffs-report-11512010

TRend at Bnym, and it’s not subtle.
More and more employees are being “RIF’d” under the disguise of performance issues — even when their track record is spotless. Let’s call it what it is: ageism and salary targeting.Batman and Robin don’t want to admit they’re cutting older, higher‑paid workers, so they hide behind manipulated evaluations and vague buzzwords like “not agile enough,” “not aligned with culture,” or “needs more energy.” It’s a cost‑cutting strategy dressed up as performance management.
This isn’t about merit.
It’s about money, age, and who they think they can push out quietly.
I should have fought your bullsh-t but didn't. I hope others do and this POS company gets what they deserve.

Word is a lot of employees are getting surprise off track reviews for Q1. Any truth?