It is pretty simple. It is a forced distribution. Everyone can’t be Outstanding. 20% must be NI and 5% NSI. Those ranked low will villanize their supervisor and complain that someone else on their team should have been ranked low and they should have been ranked high. When asked they will be unable to name who on their team should have been ranked low and just complain about how supervisors did it wrong.
15 replies (most recent on top)
Ranking is archaic. But I hope XOM keeps doing it. It will just sink them further when compared to CVX so my CVX stock can outperform
Why does the pie have to stay the same or get smaller?
Can’t the pie be bigger?
On top of everything else in the company that’s messed up, a ding a part of a contracting organization vs a growing one is never a good situation.
Run away.
OP, why do you bother? If any current EM employee believes a word of what you say, it would mean they would be stupid enough to be put in NSI for real reasons, unlike the fake ones currently used.
Supervisors have influence on the ranking, but ultimately there are fewer positions in the top 50% than most people want. From my experience, every supervisor comes into the ranking system with their employees rated higher than where they will ultimately be slotted.
If everyone comes in with 1/3rd exceptional or above, 1/3rd very good and 1/3rd good someone there are going to be a bunch of disappointed supervisors. This is what happens every year. So when the supervisor tells you they had you rated higher than where you ended up, they aren’t lying.
IT IS ILLEGAL!! How do people not know this? Race or gender based anything applied to anything-everything is discrimination against someone. Not to mention to hostile environment it creates! It is harassment as well! TRIFECTA!!!
I'm in the BYU bucket.
I'm ok.
@OP+1g6EkzRp
There’s a range for the buckets with 20% in the middle. Bottom bucket (NI +NSI) is less than 20% (like 13-15% range) unless your dept supervisors are just huge aholes and enjoy PIPing more than the minimum.
Also, as someone mentioned KO is pretty worthless to your ranking. Getting your “Allies” to talk you up doesn’t help. Only bad feedback can hurt if your supervisor is lazy and just takes it at face value. Regardless, I wouldn’t take the risk even if they bait you with getting “balanced feedback” it’s never worth it. Seen plenty of people who you expect to have “mixed feedback” cowardly slam someone because it’s anonymous.
@OP - in 2020, I had outstanding positive feedback from their 6 KO's, achieved demonstrable multi-million dollar cost savings to the company, and for 6 months had taken on 25% each of 2 less experienced colleagues' work (working 14-16 hours/day and weekend to keep up with timing demands). My reward? I was NSI'd. The reason? I wasn't "visible" enough (although, isn't that my supervisor's job?) In reality, like many others who were NSI'd, it was because I was RE, and those less experienced colleagues still work at the company - in fact they have been promoted. In my opinion, this means you are full of sh!t.
Yes- they were poor relative to the others. We don't need that talent! Hire someone new and see IF they are better...
Stupid
5 bowlers roll the following scores:
300,299,298,297,296. Should we send the 296 off for remedial training and consider kicking them off the team?
Play supervisor games, win supervisor prizes.
I lost trust in the system when later I found out that one of the managers in the ranking session didn't know that I was part of the ranking pool :)
KO means nothing even your peers provide good reviews about your accomplishment (not that you asked them to write it)
You have to play along the system if you want to survive...it is not part of your ethics, you will be really frustrated...
Enjoy the upcoming Hunger Games :p
In theory it seems fair but add in politics of EM Management then manipulation by HR and the system fails.
I have seen top performers in bottom quintile and dangerous stupid id--ts in top quintile.
Minorities are moved upward by HR. Some moved up far beyond their performance and ability. Seems like moving a person upward in ranking just because of their race should be just as illegal as moving a person downward in ranking because of their race.
Yeah, we get the concept of numerical distribution as it applies to the "ranking exercise". I think the objections are around pretending it's an objective assessment while in reality it is a weaponized tool. Thanks for playing
I do not believe my supervisor has any control over ranking. So, not upset with them.