Over the year hr said new pr system was quarterly goals and checking, no top achiever. Now I hear there is forced ranking and 80% comp if you deliver 100% of goals and need to delivery stretch to get 100% or more. Hr also said celebrate achievement when not delivering stretch goals. I don't understand. Does anyone else know or heard anything else on how this works?
14 replies (most recent on top)
FCA makes you "run the gauntlet" You don't get a raise every year. About the same as Ford but Ford gives you an annual raise.
Yes, it is deceptive. It was always deceptive. The formula for achieving AICP objectives was never transparent. Deceptive is what HR specializes in. Did you take your mandatory ethics training yet?
I consider it very deceptive to tell GSR8's at the start of 2022 that they can expect $9500 if both they and the company meet expected performance goals for the year, but then during the final PR's are told that meeting the goals are now only worth 80% payout. I would've rather been told a year ago that payout would be $7500 rather than being misled about it. Of course we all should've seen this coming when during last year's kefluffle around AICP we were told that "it was always meant to be paid at 90%, not 100%" which was a blatant lie.
@erw+1kScj8HV - cynical take on 100% performance gets 80% payout of specified for 100% performance is that they're using this as a way to save move of the backs of GSRs who like usual will be mostly at "meets expectations" (IE 100% performance) where the LL4+ ranks will be like the children from Lake Woebegone and mostly have a "exceeds expectations" rating and a modifier that gets them at least 100% of their target. Couldn't just reduce or eliminate AICP bonus for the year due to external economic conditions since the top ranks wouldn't get their extra helping of gravy.
Performance Enhancement Plan
SIRP and VSSP I know, but can you remind me what PEP stands for?
According to PR training in new PR systems, there are no longer Top Achievers or Achievers. Indeed, the mentioned that those who do above and beyond will recognized but mentioned that PR evaluation is the average of 4 interim accomplishments reviews. Meaning that one can have 2 good Q's but and two Q's below par then the annual PR is based in the average of accomplishments, Every engineering project in PD has ups and downs hence most annual PR assessments will be average. Which leaves a good narrative to SPvrs and Mgrs to squeeze salary increases from those they want to leave the company. That's a Maquiavelean strategy of high caliber. In that way Kumar and his favorites can get his 250% AICP and no GSR would have legal reasons to complain. So GSRs have two options either dig it or leave the company. In the past at UnSE, top achievers (TA) ranks were given to most FCG's regardless of their performance, just because they were FCG's plain and simple. At a recent farewell party, a drunk LL5 said that regarding AICP's nothing will change, All FCG's will get most of the % increase and the old GSR's will be getting no more than 1% since they make more $ than the young guys. he even mentioned to many old GSR's to stay mum and do not complain because HR is trigger happy with SIRP's. Jim The Legend OK'ed HR to SIRP anyone who complains about their AICP's. Happy trails
If you want out with severance, don't let a quarterly check in go to waste.
Document all your wins as well as fails and be prepared for the upcoming PEPs.
The 80% comp for 100% performance is another bad attempt at keeping the company in the black. Plus it will further the exodus of talent so that the remaining employees can fit into the existing Ford buildings for RTO.
It is all a game, man! And management is winning the game.
Force ranking
On all my quarterly ratings, I was "above target". My LL6 said not to worry. They are forced to rank but I deliver and that will be recognized and bear out in my compensation.
So I guess the solution to this mess is just to be a good performer, be part of the solution, be known as a dependable part of the team. It's been working for me and I am definitely not on anyone's friends and family plan.
They keep it ambiguous intentionally. If they are not transparent how can people question the new process. Exactly, they cannot.
Same at FCA. we work at sh*t companies !