Are mid to upper managers also being subjected to this stack ranking bullsh-t, as well?
12 replies (most recent on top)
@ye
Our whole performance is based on stack ranking? Not just for when we are displacing.
IC now but was a manager in previous role, management pushed on me to downgrade employees due to the bell curve and having "too many" meets employees.
I truly don't feel that stack ranking works in alot of job functions we have within the bank. I can see the benefit for call center and repetitive operations type work. For more specialized work even if some level of production is involved it just doesn't work and we are losing good people because of it.
Don't forget that political factors and favoritism will always play a big role in their decision making.
OK - the person talking about landing a big settlement ... LOL. Yeah right big guy. Sure that happened.
To the OP - the standard process for layoffs associated with financial or organizational goals is that like function individuals are stack ranked. Doesn't matter their level (my experience is at the Director level and below - not sure about 2/3 downs from Charlie). The manager is given some criteria to consider and they can add more criteria if they feel like the HR criteria isn't specific enough to the role. It is a total CYA activity by WF, in case someone were to threaten litigation, WF can say they follow a fair and consistent approach based off the judgment of managers who knew the employee best.
To be clear - I've only been asked to stack rank during displacement events. It's not like this is a regular occurrence. I have had conversations in the past about things like succession planning and promotions where concepts like stack ranking take place outside of the context of displacements. Those have always been less formal and the methodology is left up to the manager (vs HR).
Yes
The only roles not subject to the performance management policy/process are the OC members and the CEO because their performance is rated/governed by the BoD. Whether or not the OC leaders are subjecting their direct reports to the "distribution" of ratings or the OC's direct reports are subjecting their direct reports to the "distribution" is unknown. Because it's technically not "mandatory" so my guess would be while the OC's want their overall org to meet that distribution, exceptions are made for higher levels with it being skewed on the higher performing side.
If you don't cough up enough 1 or 2 ratings in your group you are subject to stack ranking yourself. My boss made the mistake of putting that in writing in an email. I told him I was seeking an attorney. Two months later I had a nice exit package that will take me to retirement easily. I had it in writing that he was ranking me a 2 because I didn't low rank enough of my group. Nothing in my job description, goals nor policy about that. HR tried the insubordination crud but that didn't fly. Stupid but worked for me. Last Friday was my final day. Enjoy your own personal exit strategy.
Mainly it's the weak and lazy leaders who are proponents of stack ranking. And there is no shortage of those at WF.
yes they are.
Management ensures enough of the minions are rated to ensure numbers are hit and insulate your fearless leaders.
Don't collaborate or help others win, because that means you're just enabling them to pass you and take your raise. The game is now subterfuge.
I think they are because my manager gives our team 5 times the work his peers do. He also constantly tells the team he wants to win. Win at what? The stack ranking game?
No