ECS Managers use too many Manual processes to rate performance of care advocates, I can tell you that your performance rating and map ratings are very subjective when it comes to your performance review. Very little consistency or whether composite NPS or another metric is used, no clear direction on whether adherence really does matter because workforce management can’t get a schedule together consistently that’s right, and there’s no checks or balance for what your manager says. They could be using the wrong metrics rating you and you would never know. Each region, each department, and each role here whether it’s FBCA, ABA, IOP, or A&T have their own processes and it’s so inconsistent. Could see why UHC wants to take it over and fix this sh-t show. How does a company this big not have any consistency with their processes? Because the people running it (Vps and directors) top leaders are driven by ego and not led by experienced successors. Leader ship is selected based on a popularity contest and are not held accountable For their performance. We need to dismantle this sh-t show And rebuild it.
11 replies (most recent on top)
Sounds just like my department! Is the manager MJ?
Sadly the manager is either still drinking the Optum Kool Aid or in a department not affected by all the toxicity. Or part of it. I am glad to see one dedicated team ECS pulled apart as the manager is so toxic and targets one competent clinician any chance she gets. She had our numerous staff on performance reviews and added to the initial issue illegally. Has fired fantastic staff and she has no clinical skills and picks her favorites when it comes to MAP reviews and promoted someone to do her dirty work who does absolutely nothing all day. But that person gets 5’s every MAP review
@1tre+1jPn3jEe Very true. I can attest to that. It's happened to me and my team.
Anonymous5 invisibly works for HR….
I do not believe that... I am always carrying more than my fair share, and if I think for one second my boss has my back over one of the picks, I would be a fool. I pull consistently double the load and I have 100% on the scorecard and the group is always told that just makes you a 3 by my manager and the director, so the system is rigged. Especially when you are the lowest paid group in the team and money starts at the top pay grades and makes its way down to the peons.
It simply isn't true that it is rigged. As a manager, I have never been asked to change an employee rating if I felt strongly about it and had evidence to back it up. You absolutely can have a high performing team. Results are rolled up to through the hierarchies, and there are almost always newer teams/teams with new employees that help balance out the others. We are a pay for performance company. That isn't hidden. If you want top dollar, you need to stand out and excel.
What is ECS??
Very rigged! The mgrs have a calibration meeting and bargain on who is rated 3/4/5.
Your measly 1-3 percent is decided upon by the grade 30s who get stocks and five figured bonuses.
It’s not your manager. Your manager can give you all 5s on your review. The problem is senior leaders. They require you to rank your employees and they decide how many 5s you get on your team. Even if a manager thinks their team is all 4s and 5s, senior leaders will make them downgrade the ratings based on their own funding/ratings. The manager may get one 5 on their team. It is not fair at all. If you have a high performing team, you are screwed.
I will say maybe 3 times I did get 5’s. But in recent years stayed in the 4 range. And yes never received any lucrative raise or bonus my whole tenure there. It is rigged
As a Director I have advocated multiple times over the years about the stack ranking and downgrading requirements for MAP reviews. It is all about the pot of money and we were given requirements of how many 3 and 4 were permitted; 5 were never acceptable- meaning no one gets their full bonus ever. It’s a rigged system.