Is there any truth in the rumours regards the 10% of employees marked as underperformers to be put on formal performance reviews to reduce redundancy costs?
23 replies (most recent on top)
Good is ok, and if that is someone's aspiration/ambition to do the basics, that's fine and we should value that, but they shouldn't get a bonus. On my team, I have people like that, and they are not ambitious and driven or even make any effort to do more than their basics. For too long they got a bonus every year for doing the bare minimum. The people who work their asses off have historically gotten 5 -10% more than this profile of employee, I don't think it's fair to them. I am really supportive of moving money to the people that truly deserve it. I have a team of 10 and had to have an under-performer , it was the person who does an average job, he wasn't a bad performer, but not as good as the others. Yes he was p-ss-d, but the other 9 were thrilled.
He has the opportunity this year to go above basic performance but refuses to, unsurprisingly he is the victim, the poor guy subjected to this horrible system and unfair approach, and yes he has sent me the research on how bad this is. I sent him the research on how it can drive performance, and as you would expect, he thinks that research is all rubbish. He is not on a performance improvement plan, I didn't feel there were significant gaps that justified it.
The other 9 people on my team know he is the weakest contributor on the team, the last to put his hand up for a project, always picking negatives in ideas, always the victim, and telling us how it used to be amazing in the TR days and how horrible Refinitiv is. When I tell him he can change and be more helpful and contribute more, he just argues that he is paid to do the basics, end of.
I am sure if I asked my team, who on the team deserves the underperforming rating, all 9 would list his name. My point being, when you are on a team, everyone needs to play a part, my team would, I am confident they'd be ecstatic that this guy didn't get a complete bonus in 2019.
No doubt there are examples where the rating was very unfair and biased, do not want to be disrespectful of that situation or people.
I would encourage everyone to get regular feedback and even ask your manager in your connects - if you were rating me now what rating would you give me? That way you can demonstrate you have been asking for feedback regularly and if you don't get any negative feedback during those conversations, you are better placed to challenge when you get a rating lower than you expected. It's completely unfair to give an underperforming without having given people that indication through the year ,and as i said, cover your bases by directly asking yourself. Your line manager is paid more money than you and they are expected to be open and transparent, hold them accountable for this. This is even more important for anyone who got underperforming in 2019.
LSE is more aligned to financial services/investment banking cultures, which are typically very fast paced and more assertive than the legacy laid back 9-5 TR culture that permeates a large part of Refinitiv
Most people are not in a position to just “get out”. Why would you leave a company when you have performed well for 10 plus years just because of one years false rating! Obviously people will stay and continue to good a job and hope that the culture is different under LSE.
When I managed a team I was told told they try to fit a “Bell Curve” shape for ratings.
Thus some always have to show as bad performers.
Personally my team was only above average with no slack for under under that standard.
Anyone who didn’t perform would not survive long enough to be told the fact in a yearly performance review.
@9iky+15RlrUKw : perhaps they are still there because of lack of a performance improvement plan for the employee not meeting the grade; ineffective/lazy management failing to make sure that the employee comes up to the required standard; management sitting back hoping that the non-payment of a bonus to the employee prompts the employee to leave. My point is that there are lots of reasons, and they are not always the employees fault. ...Then we have those companies who rank all employees on a quota basis and who impose an arbitrary 10% quota of non-performers, whether or not there are any employees who fit into this category or not.
curious - if you are underperforming and your record now shows that, and you didn't get a bonus, Why the shucks are you still there, what part of the message did you not get? there are 1000's of better employers, get out
I was listed as “under performing” yet I’m also on a “point of failure” list. Very conflicting message to hear. “You are so valuable in this role, that if you were to go...things will fail”. And also “I have to give someone a 2, and you’re it”. Also not on a ‘performance plan’
Some of the managers were honest about what they were forced to do. Others made up reasons to justify it and probably 1% or less we’re actually underperformers.
I was rated an underperform in 2019 (I don’t know why. My manager told me the rating was unfair which shows what a load of BS Performance Enablement is) and I’m not on an improvement plan so no
10% marked up as underperformers exactly the % that managers and HR were instructed to do and spread evenly across race gender etc to avoid any possible discrimination claim.
From my experience the only people complaining about underperforming and underperformers!
Get your lazy a– together and do a decent day's work. Problem with Refiniitv is too much dead wood - people been here forever and have zero clue what goes on in real world. I have been here a year and worked in 7 companies - guess what...they are have a curve, they all dont pay bonuses to poor perforners - why should any employer reward someone who does bare minimum - you get a salary and dont need to be topped up with a bonus!
Stop moaning - it aint gonna change, if you hate it, leave and go work for yourself...every year you can give yourself a leading rating and a 200% bonus - be in control, dont be oppressed, you have the power, what are you waiting for?
Per my LM, they are not supposed to be required to put 10% of their teams as under-performing. It’s meant to be that when you look across the org as a whole, 10% will be what’s expected. If you manage a great team and can communicate that’s the reason for your not rating 10% as UP, and it’s not due to low expectations/lazy reviewing, then that’s fine. Given they each have a “pot” of funds for bonus, though, it makes it harder to carve up the pie to incentivize your top performers if you’re lying about not having under performers.
Stack ranking - a 1980s management strategy to get rid of people thanks to Jack Welsh and GE - doesn't work for today's tech. This is a good recap of the practice https://www.perdoo.com/resources/stack-ranking/. For Refinitiv it's just a way to divide and conquer. It's not as much about underperformers as it is about control, and using performance metrics as a weapon. You'll either leave on your own for fear of losing your job - in which case you don't get severance. Or, you leave because they've manufactured a way to get rid of you - in which case you don't get severance. Oh, and don't rely on HR for any help because their jobs (while they still have them) is to protect the company, not be fair. Stacked ranking is just a tool to get rid of people without paying out, and justifying their actions in case you try and sue.
The rating formulas are such that even in a well performed team, eveyone is relatively ranked and rated. This of course means that you can be hitting your targets and delivering to plan but as each team must have people on each point in the performance curve, there must be 10% in the bottom portion. Not good if you've done everything asked, yet can still be pip'd out of your job.
Singapore tried this last year and I understand the formulas and spreadsheets have come out again with a new team but same regional leadership quietly directing traffic.
Ordinary execution of what could be handled much better.
Statistically, one of David Craig's reports should have been rated underperforming. MIght be worth asking if that was the case on his next town hall.
I was asked to put an employee on PIP, I flat out refused, said they were only only an underperformed rating due to “quotas” that needed filling.
HR were very defensive and said that shouldn’t of happened, so I gave them my senior managers name, HR partner name and an email stating that at least one person in my team had to be marked as under performing. Funnily enough I haven’t heard back
Haha at refinitiv, youd have to put 60% of the staff on this plan to have a real effect
Haven't they announced they lowered it to 5% for this year due to COVID and remote working ? So humane.
HR are pushing for performance reviews rather than line managers as managers were forced to select people as underperformers who were actually performing well. Unfortunately it looks like a system for the leadership team to extract the bonus of 10% of the staff into there own bank accounts, with managers and HR complying. I see they have already confirmed the same system will apply for this year.
HR lady talks rubbish, I know of no individuals who were rated as underperforming at last years EOY review who are on a PIP...
Thanks HR lady for your response.
Thanks HR Lady for ur post
If you are not performing, why do you think you should have a severance check?
People who underperform are always put on improvement plan.