Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

@a8
I had 20 years at WF. For better than a decade I was rated a 5 performer (before the ratings change) and after when it became “performing”, “not performing”, I was rated performing and given a “performance excellence” indicator with my rating. My last bonus was for $100k. Then, literally out of the blue I got a performance rating of “not meeting expectations”. There was no warning. There was no HR documentation of discussions of poor performance. The writing was on the wall. I was too expensive to keep and too expensive to displace. They wanted a reason to fire me which meant I would have lost years of RSR’s as well. I gave my notice less than a week later and retired. Kept my RSR’s which have been vesting and so grateful to never have to see the inside of a WF building again. Even moved my bank accounts out. I enjoyed much of my WF career, but CS destroyed the company and advancement essentially only occurs if you have friends in high places, or live in India.

@qe+1jym1b5xq

Ratings don't impact merit budgets, so when you say "to many got exceeds" you're right in the sense that HY believes that some people gain job satisfaction from being recognized in this way, and that's what they are targeting. Like everything Shart does, it's all about motivating people to quit. That's the only purpose for the current ratings guidance.

This is just way to control expenses while making you think it’s your fault instead of other economic factors. It is entirely possible to have an over-achieving team! The way to do it is…don’t pit employees against each other like this bell-curve nonsense.

1. prior to 2020, too many people got exceeds
2. in many groups it is pure politics while in some it actually works ymmv
3. while HR is clear there should be no rank ordering, they are pushing the mgrs to rank order (if that sounds like the sales fiasco it’s because it is)
4. 20% below meets is too many but 5-10 is realistic
5. layoffs are based on location and wfh which is known. Also known but hidden is layoffs are based on politics and age.

@e8+1jym1b5xq Or they are severely under market pay for the position. They get thrown a 2% bone to keep chasing the carrot that they will never catch.

@dt+1jym1b5xq
Ok, let's go with that.
You are either in a stable org that isn't loaded with chaos, or have skills beyond your job level, or you haven't been re-orged into a job you aren't qualified for, or been set up to fail on projects that end up going nowhere.
Oh, your in a circle, your are just kidding yourself.

@dt+1jym1b5xq Your time is coming. Wait for it.

I've repeatedly been "Exceeds" and I'm not in any circle, been here for ages. I don't kiss the a-s plenty of others around here do either. The world isn't always out to get you. Some of you just aren't as good at your jobs as you think, and given how may posts there are about just waiting to be laid off, should it be that surprising when you are barely rated meets?

This is rank and yank on steroids. At least Welch had six sigma k.p.i s to evaluate people on. The yearly performance evaluation fuels this bully bank.

It’s the lying about it that infuriates me. Wall Street investment banks are up front that there will be a forced ranking and the bottom will be cut. Wells Fargo tries to gaslight everyone and claim it’s just a “guided” distribution and no one should be rated below meets if they don’t deserve it. Bullsh-t! I’m a manager and have been ordered by my directors or my executive to rate someone lower to fit the distribution every year since this started.

They keep trying to convince us that "meets" is a GREAT rating, but it's obvious that it isn't. No one EVER questions a meets during calibration. If it was good performance you'd have to justify it extensively in order to give it to someone. Pretty obvious that it means 'mediocre' to the executives themselves. It's all part of the plan to demotivate people and encourage them to leave.

I hope Charlie gets diagnosed with glioblastoma.

Welcome to 4 years ago

My manager said our group is ranking everyone and the bottom will get “not meeting expectations”. Then they told me before the rating period opened that I’m getting the lowest score on the team, even though I have the heaviest workload and the most complex projects. They said it isn’t possible for everyone to meet expectations. I know the writing is on the wall, I’m a long time employee and have never gotten “does not meet expectations”.

This is the most damning part. Because it reveals the lie of the rating system. You can perform. You can comply. You can deliver. But when budget, offshoring, or internal optics hit? None of that protects you.

The last calibration must have included guidance for long term employees to get rated low. I know some great workers (in hub, considered SMEs) who received bad reviews.

Guess what, I kept being told by my manager to keep doing what I am doing, got “Meets” and then got laid off. Good luck folks!

This is the result of working for morally bankrupt people. They have no soul, no ethics and would unplug their mother's life support to charge their cell phone. Just a horrible place to attempt to work.

Performance systems turned into control mechanisms. Managers who can’t lead but still get cover. People who protect themselves over the team. A culture that punishes truth and rewards optics.

You’re not paranoid. You’re not alone. And you’re not imagining the rot. This is the canary in the coal mine.