F U WELLS
23 replies (most recent on top)
Half of you may have earned it. The other half may be scr3wed due to forced rankings. If you honestly had no clue st mid year or 1:1s and you think the evidence is a bunch of junk do the following:
- ask immediately for a skip level. If they can’t honor it within a week go to HR.
- if skip level meeting doesn’t meet your expectations then open a case in HR. A full investigation will happen. Thru it all you may not (likely won’t) get an improved rating, you now hold them on edge and it looks bad if they have no case.
- the first time things go south after this (not of your doing) then go to HR again with details.
- get with your boss and insist on weekly (settle for biweekly) meetings to go over you ongoing performance and do everything they ask. They can’t down rate you next time then. It makes them look good because they helped raise a poor performer.
Seems more like you f'd around and found out. The way some of you talk about wanting to be laid off all the time, why should you be surprised when you don't meet expectations?
If you get a IM you should be given a performance plan. Hold your mgr to the plan for your 25 mid-year
After weekly 1-1's where I was told that I was doing great and how lucky they were to get me after a recent re-org, imagine my surprise to get an IM rating. My poor manager said it was not his idea and was handed down to him. The rationale was that I get paid more than everyone else in the group (having been recently re-orged into a more junior position than I had previously) and that I did not push as much into production as my colleagues. He was quite distraught. I asked what I needed to do to get a Meets next time and he said to make sure I got everything into production exactly per the roadmap. I said "You mean, do exactly the same thing as I did this past year?" He said "Yes". Right, sure.
It’s all too real. Never received anything below meets in 25 years if employment (with many, many exceeds) and then was completely blindsided by an IM that mentioned things that weren’t factual or even applicable. Not one time during any 1:1 was anything ever mentioned and was even told to keep up the great work. Hit with IM then laid off a week later. I was thrilled to get a package and be paid to leave that toxic, abusive, unethical cesspool.
Managers have gotten pretty bold in just making up stuff to justify their ratings to meet their unrealistic quotas. They know employees can’t’ and won’t do any about it, at least 99%. The objective is to reduce pay and drive attrition but because most managers are HUMAN 😃 the process is highly bias to where they shield their friends and victimize the highest contributors.
It’s out of control and no one doing $hit about it.
@dp+1jhpre5p6 Hire employment lawyer.
shegerianlaw
650 California Street, #4-137 San Francisco, California 94108
Performance ratings should not be a surprise. The midyear might be one thing but by year end, the review goes to next couple levels of management and they change it to something totally different and unexpected. Immediate manager does not always know how it comes back.
I’d join group legal action if it exists. Got my IM and explanation/justification had nothing to do with actual work that was done.
Wells Fargo's Performance Management Woes
Capricious Rules: Return-to-office mandates and performance ratings seem to hinge on managerial whim rather than clear policy.
Forced Stack Ranking: Employees face surprise ratings and potential layoffs via the controversial "rank and yank" method, where performance isn't the sole criterion.
Bias in Bonuses and Ratings: Decisions on bonuses and performance seem influenced by personal favoritism rather than merit, leading to unexpected outcomes for employees.
Lack of Transparency: Performance reviews are often a shock, with evaluations based on projects or applications employees haven't worked on.
Ethical and Legal Concerns: The practice has led to dissatisfaction, ethics complaints, and hints at potential legal action, reflecting a workplace culture of distrust and competition rather than collaboration.
The consensus among employees is clear: this system breeds frustration and might lead to significant turnover or legal challenges if not addressed. Could 2025 see similar mass exits as seen elsewhere? Only time will tell.
So many excuses, stack ranking, bell curve, boot li---r. Everyone to blame but yourself
I’ve never given an IM where I didn’t have documentation to support the rating
Waaaaaaaa! I stink at my job and they found out! Waaaaaaa!
When will they learn their lesson? I see fake reviews coming back to haunt us like fake account scandal.
SNAFU is the word of the day.
That sounds worthy of review from a qualified employement attorney.
Along with forced stack ranking comes the rank and yank method of "choosing" folks to lay off. "performance ratings are not supposed to be a surprise" ... not at Wells. They are a surprise. In the same week as my layoff I was hit with a please respond to this performance review. It discussed applications that I had not even heard about! I asked around and even my co-workers hadn't heard about them!
Like Facebook, any below meets will be gone in 2025?
OMG, stack ranking is the worst and should be illegal. This happened to me and when I called the ethics line, they sided with the upper management. I legitimately qualified for an “exceeds” rating and my direct manage wrote me up as such, however, when my year end review made it to their manager, that upper manager said we already have too many employees as an “exceeds” and was forced to change my rating to a meets, which sc--wed me out of getting a higher raise. I’m still salty about that and this was like 5 years ago.
Forced stack ranking. Yay. Gloves are now off. Do not ask me for help, else I will only give you the bare minimum needed to send you on a wild goose chase. I will not colllaborate with others, as they are now competitors. Let the games begin.
Performance ratings are not supposed to be a surprise, if managers are having honest discussions or if performance metrics are real reflections of what is expected and a stretch. BUT Welss managers and leaders are conflict adverse and scared to have tough and honest conversations. This should be an HR issue and should reflect more lawsuits if people were honest. Wells just figures many won’t challenge ratings because they are either frustrated that HR will do nothing or that they would be targeted or we are all just lemmings.
In Tech, this year the “guided” distribution was a “forced” distribution from BE. There are many that will be blindsided this year with an unexpected low rating.
You earned it!
Pay by performance.
20% gets IM- that is how Binu’s for top performers are funded.