@21jf dropping facts
16 replies (most recent on top)
Directly. Your rank is the only variable you might affect to change your target salary. The other factors you can't control are age, salary grade, and current salary curves.
But in most cases, rank is more a function of your current assignment than performance. Ask anyone whose rank skyrocketed with one assignment only to plummet with another.
“Performance Ranking”?
If performance was how we were ranked, this would be a very different company.
@1tph The metric you are referring to is the CL midpoint. 100% means right at the midpoint for all RG as an aggregate curve. For early to mid career the Company prefers to bump you up a CL as you near or at the midpoint. Allowing you to go past the mid point means you are at or near your potential. Your RG should then drop at that point as others in your rank group are promotable. It's typical to let CL 28-30 ride out to 115 to 120% of the midpoint with low merit increases as they near retirement
Okay, it makes sense if there was some sort of minimum default for everyone whose salary was “too high” compared to their reference.
But that tells me the reference has gone down or not changed for years. Several of these people had been NI for a long time. This also came on the heels of a pay freeze so none of these people had received a raise for two years.
Something nefarious going on with the salary reference curve if all of these people were deemed “too high”.
@1syi. There are two components. One is the mechanics of where you landed with your RG and YEE which will provide a merit increase. . The other is an adjustment for the whole set of pay curves for a given CL due to market conditions. In the case of all Gs get the same,bit is telling that the adjustment for your CL was on the order of 1% with a small merit increase for a G. It means better ranked people who landed on more favorable spots on the RG scales got a real merit increase plus the ~1% adjustment.
Because on that xy plot there’s a separate curve for each rank group. Being G means you were all more likely to be deemed too high relative to your reference and so they defaulted to 1.1%
The reference range thing doesn’t make sense to me. Everyone in my department at every level who was G got a 1.1% raise last year. All YEE and even different CLs. All different histories of performance ranking. It’s like someone said “All Gs get 1.1%” and that was the only input.
What am I missing?
Performance +salary relative to your salary reference curve =raise
Salary reference curve is an X-Y chart where y is salary and X is YEE. There is a band that goes up and flattens out as you get older, which is your salary range. There is a salary reference curve for each CL.
If you are an EM employee then you know about payscales and Ranking Groups.
O believe me.
Ranking effects it.
I never asked about them. Just tried to hang in there and hoped one day it would come.
I remember one increase that as a supervisor, I would have been embarrassed to share.
Good luck
NSI or NI is guaranteed a zero increment for years until they quit. Even if they managed to get back up, their career is over. Better to find a better company to work for.
It's a "popularity" contest, not a performance " evaluation". Everyone should know that by now that has been here any length of time...
It doesn't matter if you are a NRE employee.. it's going to be no or low.
Only supervisors and managers are valued now, thus they're the ones Excellent and above with the reasonable rises.
It's pretty significant. The people in O might get double digit raises while VG gets 1-2%.