Is it normal to hear what you’ve never heard before (why you’re not ranked higher) from your boss during this session?
26 replies (most recent on top)
@2mpk Yes what you are saying is to modernize the feedback system similar to what the rest of the world has been doing for decades. No more reason for this outdated serial system with its element of labeling and social embarrassment as an intimidation tool.
We need a 3 bucket system.
- 10% superstar/hipo/kiss-ups/sponsored group/expats who can walk on water/etc.
- 85% everyone else who is just doing their job well and not wanting to play any games to get ahead or wasting time with all the networking coffee chats
- 5% people who aren’t a good fit and/or who are no longer keeping up with the pack and trying anymore.
Change my mind……
@1ail+1ibcZw0g Did you change rank groups? Expectations may have changed if you are in a new rank group. I also am seeing that with the merging of upstream and downstream groups with overlapping skills in Houston winners and losers are being picked. Do you have a rival with similar skills you are competing against? Definitely not a good sign. If I were you I’d be planning my exit.
@1ail+1ibcZw0g How do you know what your KOs put into career connect? Do you know what the other supervisors in the rank session think of you?
No, because they have to wait until after the session to construct the narrative to fit where you end up. If they provide feedback during the year, you adjust then hit the targets it’s more difficult to spin the rank story.
To summarize:
Caddy successfully for a manager at a charity event.
All else is dross.
Narcissism and Sycophancy are the only measures of success.
What a mouthful!
@1tpu+1ibcZw0g You sound like you're a supervisor. Can you clarify then please why my KO Feedback was consistently excellent but I tanked from top 20 to bottom 20 in 1 rank cycle?
To the poster who said their supervisor isn’t helping them improve. Think about it for a minute. No matter how much a supervisor helps their team improve they still have to meet the distribution. They can’t somehow coach the entire team to outstanding. The team will have to meet the distribution of categories. The person who said it depends more on what the people in the room think about you than your supervisor is also correct. No matter how persuasive your supervisor is they aren’t going to beat the thirty other supervisors into submission and get their team ranked high at the expense of everyone else in the rooms teams. You have a good supervisor if they manage to get a couple people in outstanding and excellent.
To the person who said their supervisor told them to be friends with the other managers. Be thankful you have an honest manager. He could have lied to you and made something up but he told you the truth of how the system works. At least your supervisor is honest and trying to help you succeed instead of dishing out some bs company line about how the ranking is meant to help you do better and you would have ranked higher if you had just used the right font size on your PowerPoint.
Take a little ownership of the situation. Likely your KO feedback includes the feedback and hadn’t been given to your supervisor prior to assessment time. If you don’t want to be surprised ask your KOs for feedback throughout the year. Of course you have to find KOs who won’t blindside you by not telling you the same thing they tell your supervisor. Most supervisors aren’t as Ebola s this site makes them out to be. They are just passing along what your KO feedback said. Do people on this site really expect them to gather feedback from all of the people you could potentially ask to be a KO throughout the year so that you aren’t surprised? Pick your KOs carefully and ask them for feedback continually throughout the year on your own. Own it!
Hoping it was just this specific young Supervisor, but in 6 years of reviews, I've never received feedback about my inadequate regard for our 'Lord and Savior.'
That came from left-field, must say.
HR-we know you’re seeing this and you need to do something about it. The system is flawed and there is no recourse of action nor fully assessment performed on the managers to incorporate true and honest feedback for them. And you wonder why attrition is so high.
Since you seem to have insider information about the process and judge other's views as cr-p, why you don't tell us more?
WTF happen in those meetings?
What information that they used to hide with the old system are now forced the to provide with the new system?
Really who hires these people? Is this the new definition of “best and brightest”?
“if my performance was an issue, why was there no counseling going on? “
Because, hot shot, with the fix numerical target in NSI, the manager has no incentive to warn you to improve. If they warn you, someone else will be NSI and this person would not have been warned.
@qkg+1ibcZw0g
Cut the cr-p. It was never like what you describe. Most supervisors lied to your face all the time.
The new system is indeed brutal and unfair and id--tic but with the new system they forced the supervisors to provide information that up to now they used to hide. The irony is that now the supervisors are spilling the beans about the idiocy of the ranking sessions. Now and in the Past!
...."it's by committee and comes down to the persuasiveness, argumentativeness, and bartering ability of your representative"....
Spot on.
I would add to this that the persuasiveness of the others (not your representative) is also a huge factor.
Some members of the "committee" are very good at influencing it, there might be a "higher flyer" than your supervisor in the committee and there might be no upside for your supervisor to fight a battle on your behalf against this "superstar" that is sponsored by some hotshot and might become your supervisor's boss in the near future.
Between defending you and disagreeing with the superstar the choice is obvious: to drop the ball on you.
This was explained to me by my supervisor the day I resigned.
Yes especially in Annandale…..oh also preparing for site closure 😪
I would argue that the main issue is not the "relative" part, but the fact that it's by committee and comes down to the pursuasiveness, argumentstivess, and bartering ability of your representative. The other committee members have too much control over an individual they don't represent. That's why it matters more that you suck up to managers who will be in the meeting than performing the best work for the most company value. The relative part is the 2nd worst part because the committee make relative weighting irrational.
My performance feedback one time was “you did excellent work but you need to make friends with as many managers as possible that attend the ranking meeting”
I sh!t you not.
If you haven't heard it before it is mainly due to the fact that it would have seemed trivial to mention it before, but, you didn't do well at the ranking session and it's all he or she have on you So now it's mentioned and exaggerated. The most fun part is that now it will stick and always be part of your work personality and persona 20 years from now they can always resort to it and it wil still stick.
The main issue and complaint was I had bib and knee pads on backwards. The company logo should be front facing
When I went through supervisor/manager training early in my career, one of the things they drilled into us was that there should never be any surprises at the performance feedback session. This meant you were supposed to be engaged with all your employees throughout the year, providing feedback (both positive and negative when necessary) all the time. Unfortunately, today’s environment requires so many stewardship performances, that supervisors are forced to spend more time managing their own careers rather than those of their direct reports. A true indication of an unhealthy corporate culture, and a toxic work environment. Managers used to be assessed by the success and progress of their people, not on their brown-nosing sycophantic skills. Truly disappointing to see what this organization has become.
The issue is the "relative" part of the assessment. A supervisor may have a strong case for say Excellent and the associated "development areas" that are known and agreed with you. But during the session due to all sort of reasons other people are ranked above you. Could be because the rank group includes people that are not visible to the supervisor but do end up being strong performers or because other supervisors provide feedback that ends up as "new" development areas that were not known to your supervisor. If he then comes out of the session with you being, say Good, than the additional development areas are indeed new (justified or not...).
.... or you have an incompetent manager.
I always felt like if my performance was an issue, why was there no counseling going on?
They want you to quit, take the PIL or retire is the bottom line.
Especially as you age. The company could care less if you have 1 year or 40 years of service.
Yeah it's not uncommon. If you end up in a lower group than your supervisor expected they'll usually try make up some reasons as to why during your feedback session.
That's actually one of the warning signs of bad management, employees hearing about deficiencies for the first time during their review session.
Hate to tell you, but yep...you got a bad manager there.