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?
5 replies (most recent on top)
@a2 i heard it was nothing below excellent. Up to cl27
What’s important to know is how many people/ teams in the assessment. For example- was there 30 people or 80. Remember it’s 5%- so if the 30 people are across 3 teams- at least one supervisor won’t have a NSI. If it’s 80 people across 10 teams- only 4 people are NSI- so at least 6 supervisors will not have a NSI. Some teams may legit have all high performers- but HR/CHAIR should make sure that all supervisors put their initial assessments in spread across Outstanding to Needs Improvement. However- most Chairs and HR are cowards and don’t- so it makes assessment a sh-t show. Experienced supervisors play the long term game much better than newbies . They know the results from the prior year and remember bad actors and most representations. You never want a brand new supervisor representing you in assessment- especially in the 28/29 bucket.
It’s literally the hunger games on multiple levels- supervisors and managers will sabotage each other in the back along the way, especially when avoiding putting one of their people in NSI to start with.
I know this because I was in the new assessments for 6 years before retirement.
Planners are upset to have lost their alternate distribution without warning. In the past groups were notified ahead of time and worked with D&S to transfer in “low performers” to take the hit. Yes your past performance matters and each year is not a clean slate.
I think if some teams in any organization are doing really well and also the manager PIPed out some one last cycle can avoid NSI may be but not NI but I can be wrong
Historically that was the case for many of the Planner teams. They didn’t have anyone drop below “Good” because it was considered a step-out opportunity for higher potential resources. I heard the exception was still in place last year, but gone this year.