Been here 16 yrs always excelled and met for performance. Worked late nights and early morning last year to get an inconsistently meets but reading the review it raves and received a bonus…What the bloody he-l?
23 replies (most recent on top)
Also- can't count on peers & biz partners to give neutral/fair feedback. A lot of them want to stick it to you with all the back stabbing going on here. Manager can choose who to go to for feedback depending on what result they want.
When I provided feedback on others I was fair, but not everyone is like that.
Think about it, even if that person is in your org, one small negative feedback/downgrade from them means you get lower grades than they do, potentially, due to the overall stack rank.
Performance ratings are stupid. They can rate you anything they want. I had a direct report once and I was told what rating to give her. I wasn’t even allowed to give any input. These ratings are some stupid thing thought up by some other useless Harvard MBA or consultant. They serve no purpose other than to make executives feel superior.
The day I walked out the doors of Wells Fargo due to the total sc--w-up of the Return to Office efforts, the racially-charged lending discrimination practices, the fake interviews was the best thing I’ve ever done! Stocks are down 40% in the last 10 weeks due largely to the often destructive, “inconsistently meets” leadership abilities of the top Execs.
Don't think that leaving for another bank changes anything; at my previous bank, rating calibrations have been in place for years. I'm surprised WF just started doing it. We also were strongly encouraged to reach out for 360 feedback from peers, direct reports and other partners...then when calibration time came, anyone who had words in the box under 'opportunities' would be down graded...regardless of what the words were. It would be "oh Sally has 15 pieces of feedback under 'strengths' and John has 21 but John has 2 'opportunities' so Sally is higher ranked"
Your spineless middle manager had to pick someone to give 30% of his or her employees an inconsistently meets. And his or her spineless managers also have zero ba--s to stand up to the id--ts running WF to tell them that this quota of needs improvement or inconsistently meets only serves to run off good employees who have skills and can get a job and will leave them with the bottom feeders and those waiting to retire and praying to be included in a layoff so they can collect a year's salary while "looking" for a job.
Fu(k Wells Fargo. I quit after 23 years when my spineless middle manager flat out told me it was not her decision to give me that inconsistently meets and when I protested via an HR complaint, she came back and lied and said it was her decision. I quit and its time for you to do the same.
" Systematically setting it up to be near impossible to give exceeds, keep everyone at a meets for no raises, and nit pick the smallest things to downgrade people to needs improvement and get them headed to the door.:
Exactly what happened to my team. My manager litterally said we needed to pick x. The smallest, nit-picky things got them downgraded. Turned out more than those folks got laid off in the end. Got re-orged to a new manager. My gut tells me I will be on the receiving end of an "inconsistently meets" this next round. Always received an "exceeds". I have never seen this type of management ever in my long career and it is really appalling.
They can replace you with someone younger and cheaper. Looks better for the bottom line. No matter how good of a friend your manager is, at the end of the day, he will choose his own job over you. Seems there is pressure for management to force higher paid employees out or else lay them off with severance. Either his job or yours and he will always choose his.
Thank you everyone for the advice
@1u I was told about the rating change during my review. Their way of saying they had no control I guess.
according to the "manager talking points PDF" that was linked in the company wide email about mid-year reviews, a "meets" is supposed to be for a "strong performer". How do they expect 60%+ to be a "strong performer". Systematically setting it up to be near impossible to give exceeds, keep everyone at a meets for no raises, and nit pick the smallest things to downgrade people to needs improvement and get them headed to the door.
surprising your manager gave you your rating before calibration. my team met and we went over our meets and exceeds to try to align, some got moved up and some moved down. having seen some battles between hr, managers, and leadership regarding the supposed forced ranking that "doesn't happen" in most cases it's a losing battle and unless you are being retaliated against for some reason you'll have no recourse.
@jls is correct, please see that response
Do you look for a new job if you get needs improvement?
@jls
“ We're being told to have 60% Meets, 0-30% Exceeds (with a lot of extra work to justify, preference is %0 exceeds), and this year they added 30% need to be inconsistently meets.”
So you can have a total of up to 120% of employees rated? 60% meets, 30% exceeds, 30% inconsistently meets.
We’re in line with enterprise recommendations 5/15/60/15/5
OP: you are not alone. I was with the company for 15 years and had received "consistently exceeds" ratings for many years. My manager's-manager changed to a new hire individual from a consulting firm and all of a sudden I received a "needs improvement". In retrospect, I realized my manager was forced to give me this rating by the jerk new hire "executive". My manager was apologetic but yet firm and only after she retired let me know (she felt that bad) it was not her choice. The "executive" only lasted a couple of years with the company (thank goodness). Unfortunately, this now appears to be common place. My new manager gives me "exceeds" ratings and I'm sure it will come back to you. Don't give up.
"Set a goal to get a new position by Labor Day and you can do it. This recession is going to turn into a depression..."
if we are heading into a depression, as you claim, what good would it do to acquire a new position by Labor Day?
Why give bad performance rating if you are going to spend resources hiring someone new?
Well, @jls nails it. Everything is outlined in his/her response.
I'll go ahead and make a main thread on this so other people can see it.
These types of BS games that corporations play is why so many can't stand working for them.
Look elsewhere and immediately ask around your network and start applying online, too.
Inflation is not going anywhere and layoffs will be coming continually for the foreseeable future. Set a goal to get a new position by Labor Day and you can do it. This recession is going to turn into a depression because we the people in charge don't really care about any of us, nor do they think that any of what they advocate for is wrong. Take charge and act now and you can do it. Get the ball rolling. Do it now.
Agree with the manager (not yours) below. This is a forced distribution of relative ranking. A team's population must fit within the curve. This inaccurate assumption is that every team has a normal distribution of performance. As a company, we probably have a normal distribution of performance given our huge population. But each team? no way.
Using a sports analogy, does every team in a league (MLB, NFL, etc.) have an equal distribution of talent? NO! The really good teams have more "exceeds" and "highly exceeds", and the teams at the bottom of the rankings have more "doesn't meet" players compared to all players in the league. To assume that each team has the same distribution of performance is wrong.
I've also heard that the curve looks different across the company. some teams' curves are absurdly narrow in that almost everyone gets a "meets" (aka a "3) with the one or two remaining getting an "exceeds (aka "4); nothing below a "3" and no "5".
I guess recruiting in HR deserved a big fat does not meet due to the 30% rate of all hired here.
Spread the BS and include everyone
A manager here (not yours):
Performance "calibration" at work. Try not to be hurt - just move on. This has been going on for 3 years and gets more aggressive each year. Your manager probably held out for as long as possible or is "rotating" the good ratings to spread the pain.
We're being told to have 60% Meets, 0-30% Exceeds (with a lot of extra work to justify, preference is %0 exceeds), and this year they added 30% need to be inconsistently meets. Every year they tighten the numbers of good reviews we are allowed to have.
There are slides from 2019's "calibration" talks circulating for managers that show a "calibrated" team's performance - a perfect bell curve and the words "We are not grading on a curve". Not sure how that's possible since I was told, "Drop one exceeds to meets, drop one meets to inconsistently meets - don't care who, don't care why, update your verbiage to match by COB when they run the report again".
In years passed I "donated" my higher rating to one of my deserving staff. This year no luck. Attrition is the mission.
I'd call the Ethics Line, but that will get me nowhere - this rotten practice started at the top. Just leave this dead shark. Fake accounts, fake regulatory progress, fake interviews, fake move to the cloud, fake reviews...see a pattern?
@frn+1hIvMSfF With this manager for 5 yrs. Mid year was meets and then unexpectedly changed with no check in to let me know what was pulling it down and no chance to right the ship. Just indicated it was changed during the “calibration” meeting. Talk about lowering the morale of your employee!
Sorry to hear this.
Has your manager changed?
How long have you had the current manager?
It's VERY unususal for a manager to sudenly turn and go from excellent to "inconsistently meets" - especially if you have a relationship. You should be, much earlier, catching hints about performance issues in your meetings with the manager...
Good luck.