Are the employees really that bad, or does leadership have some accountability?
16 replies (most recent on top)
@az no, 100k base is 15k AIP, 6500 LTI so that's 21500
150k would be 29k
@OP our controversial new leader required 7% of the workforce be rated “needs improvement”. That way they don’t have to payout raises or bonuses. Are we surprised after watching all of those talented individuals “retire” way too young this year? They want people to feel stuck and quit. There is no other message.
@c9 I believe it as I almost have a similar history of ratings and two of my team members have better ratings than me.
@ad 7 straight years of exceeds is BS. Tell us something that's not a lie.
@aq grade 14 making 150+ base? Must be comp science and vhcol
it just gives them an excuse to not give decent raises to people. Just another way that upper management at the bank is sc--wing people over.
This year the management committee insisted that all L3's have a certain number of Needs for Improvement. It has become a form of stack ranking.
Needs Improvement may not be equal to yesteryears PIPs.
But ....
Needs Improvement also guarantees no merit, none/less bonus and most importantly "next on deck" for a severance-free layoff. Essentially, it's a self-PIP.
@ad did this man say it was meaningful and not exceptional BECAUSE you are not revenue generating area?
Needs improvement guarantees no pay raise, no bonus which for example gr14 is a loss of $20-$25k bonus compensation. So don't sugarcoat what that rating means.
@ad past performance is no guarantee of future results
I had my performance review today. 7 years straight of extraordinary performance, new manager this year and because I’m not revenue connected, I’m now the proud of owner of my first meaningful performance award. 🥈 . I’m on site and have met RTO with no issues
Where would I notice a high number of other employee ratings? Another manager without ethics posting them here somewhere?
@a3 "There was added accountability this year on reviews." That is, of course, BS, and you know it - when you give someone a 'needs improvement' rating, you mark him for layoff (or you encourage him to leave on his own in order to save severance money and get a pat on the back as his manager). Moreover, the individual will not be able to move internally, as he is contaminated with a bad review. That person will not 'improve' as you may think he might, but will be looking for a way out.
Nice try, though, Happy Holidays.
Yep. We are not doing it to pip people but rather encourage performance. But mileage will vary of course…
@OP yes, but this was by design. There was added accountability this year on reviews. The bar and standards were raised, but, I was also told that “needs improvement” is not the nail in the coffin we would have considered it a year ago.
There is messaging and awareness that needs improvement essentially means there is growth needed in multiple areas of the job based on the high performance standards. There is no requirement that someone goes on a PIP.
I can’t speak for fairness but I can speak that for a long time many employees who were just getting by were getting meaningful ratings, just the same as their actual performing counterparts. This year, leaders had to calibrate and justify ratings among their peers.