Has anyone heard the percentage of employees to be ranked underperforming?
14 replies (most recent on top)
i just received a "below" rating and was told by my manager that it was required rate 25% below. the problem is now i'm on the chopping block for no reason other than i've been here for 30 years. we have always had forced ratings but now they have we-ponized it.
The rejection of comments about partial/does-not-meet quotas is surprising.
For 10 years, I have worked at the bank, primarily as a manager of a mid-sized team. Before the current executive administration, HR's only influence on my division was discouraging more than one Exceeds/Exceeds rating per team. This seemed sensible, as too many exceeds could diminish the achievement.
After Todd's departure, our divisional MD informed managers that HR had set new requirements: no more than 10% exceeds across the division and no less than 10% does-not-meet. The bottom 10% were to be placed on PIPs, not RIFs. Disturbingly, HR stated these guidelines should be communicated verbally only. This was unprecedented, and I was skeptical until hearing the same message from peer divisions.
When the quota increased to 25%, I was surprised but not doubtful. This means 25% of the remaining domestic workforce will face compensation cuts, loss of severance benefits, and forfeiture of past bonus incentives (stock).
Unfortunately, as long as the market rewards the bank's share price for these questionable cost-cutting practices, change seems unlikely.
the idea is to replace existing employees with younger and cheaper ones
instead of working together and optimize the existing workforce, it's to deceive and pretend you transform a company when you move the puzzles around till everyone is confused, and the stock market seems to appreciate it
the result in not much of any change in the number of employees as you have to replace one experienced employee with up to 3 new ones, where 2 of them leave within 2 - 3 years, but in endless talking points in townhalls
Before others realize that you don't achieve anything, top managers have to move every 2 - 4 years
@ae there was always a percentage to provide
either you are on a top level and you are not aware anymore, what happens to employees or you are on a so low level, that nobody ever told you this
it's the bell curve, which must get applied
some years stricter, some years less, the last years it's tight, which means employees who deliver still fall in the last category if you have a good team
as you have end of year 4 categories this year, the percentage still needs to be decided
will be around 10 / 70 / 10 / 10
the last 10 leaving the company, the lower 10 pressured and considered for next year to fail
@ae u r a fu--ing liar
25%
What that really means is that the upper management thinks 1 out of every 4 people can be destroyed for profit.
This has zero to do with personal performance and goals.
I’m sure they will rank 25% low just so they see what they have to work with and then decide from that list. Anyone not laid off will have that record/paper trail for down the road. Sc--w this place.
Easy to sue the company @25%.
No way 25% can be justified in the courts eyes. FU
The current number is 25%. How else will the stock prices get to $100???
There have always been forced rankings and we now have forced RATINGS.
@ae Nonsense. There have always been forced rankings and if you managed people here, or you work in HR, you know that is a bold face untruth.
@bt oh my god..25%
What are they even doing any more? This should be in the news honestly. If you’re telling the truth you should send a tip to some news outlet that covers this topic. After the Microsoft mess of the layoffs and then asking for more H1Bs, this needs to be heard.
I also was told 25% but for year end reviews. And to 1jzrxwmj4, there have ALWAYS been percentages and at most firms.
25% from what I am being instructed I am in Everett, and those are the numbers being pushed to us. I dont know how they plan on maintaining this rate of 25% and cuts before it starts to go poorly.
There has never been a required percentage of employees to be ranked as underperforming.
But you knew this of course and you’re just trying to grind your axe.
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply work your job?