I would say about 10-15% of the workforce is really good and hard working. The problem is that more and more work is getting piled on them and they're getting sick and tired of it. What are your thoughts?
16 replies (most recent on top)
Leading is only reserved for the a– kissers who do very little work. You have people who can barely speak Understandable English or know how to put a proper email together promoted and will get leading... I don’t agree that there is only 1 good worker in a group, even so, that good worker will be ranked mediocre. The whole ranking is a popularity contest and completely unethical.
Fish rots from the head down. We see the favoritism of one over the other. Keep babying the lazy and the ones that carry the weight will find somewhere else to work.
Very rarely does it seem that the distribution of "leading" is linked to real performance or results. I've seen it used to retain underpaid employees, justification to bump up an employee's title, and as a regular perk for pets. What makes it more unfortunate is in teams which properly use it, there is usually a mismatch in the number of leading rankings that can be given versus the number of top performers in a team.
This should be Verizon's top tool to motivate employee performance. It is as broken as you'd expect, sadly.
I bust my a– every year and almost always get "Performing". Even for 2018 when I volunteered for the VSP and was denied because I was "integral to the business", I still got Performing.
It’s a roll of the dice of who gets leading vs performing. I’ve had years where I’ve done jack .... and gotten leading and other years I’ve busted by butt and gotten performing. There is no rime or reason. And honestly , the small bump in STI or raise is b......... anyway. I’d argue leading should get %150+ for how few get given out.
@1qnh+13fN7V5X - Great reply. A little too on the nose, to be honest. I think my boss suspects that I wrote this? Hahaha. There is only one "leading" in my group, which means that there's no incentive to outperform this year or any other year. We've already got a beloved employee who is going to be impossible to displace. Performing well above average work means "performing". Verizon does not reward it.
management teams members are rated top to bottom by performance. 10% can get leading, 10% get development needed. The rest are in the middle. When it comes to asking the managers to give something back to the business, they work from the bottom of their performance spreadsheet to the top, bottom folks getting the notice that their position has been eliminated. The manager has to justify the reason for laying off the bottom guy. It may be something totally subjective, but it's the manager's job to manage the business with what they have left. If the manager submits more than 10% leading, they will have to convince their boss to allow more. Regardless, the money pool is typically 3% and leadings will get more money out of the pie. The bottom of the list may get nothing.
Answer/. Every one that possibly could at the time. Those that did not wanted to but wasn’t in a position to take the risk. The thought behind it is now to ride the sinking ship and collect all the mone y can now and not to stress and just do wha they’re getting paid for and no more. Days of us working 24/7 and getting paid for 8hrs are over. Yeah it’s an awaking which takes a yea or two to review thru all the smoke and mirrors of the media hype.
100%
The boards have been updated is stupidest waste of money ever.
OP is a silly rabbit. Everyone knows only one person in every group is a good worker. The rest get mediocre performing ratings while the one good worker gets a leading.
So, you see, it is easy to measure how many good workers there are by simply looking at the performance rating system which is based on what kind of budget a manager gets to pass out raises, which always equates to only being able to have one good worker per group.
You can't have more than one good worker per group because that would mean Hans and his c suite, social media posting, top heavy executive team would have to take some sort of cut. Bit that will never happen because we need layers upon layers of associate directors, directors, executive directors, vice presidents, senior vice presidents, regional presidents, area presidents, group presidents and more executive officers than you can shake a stick at.
We will just keep taking work away from them and paying contractors to do the work
What a STUPID post
Union workers? 0%
Your numbers are too high
are you a good worker?