Do managers have to do the calibration according to the scale or can they actually just put more people in meets instead of rating them as exceeds, etc?
15 replies (most recent on top)
My manager told me he was pressured more than ever to limit anything over meets, and he has been doing it for years.
I got NI after being told I had the best work. It is all a game! Like Squid Game. I also got fired. HR said nothing was out of policy.
IM is not only used to fire people, which will take time. IM is used to save raise and bonus. Per company policy IM isn't eligible for raise but eligible for bonus, unlikely people will get either one.
Tech, personally I no longer care, it's a lost cause. I ask my manager via email to give me a heads up if am slipping into range of not getting a meets, or I am receiving negative feedback. Who knows if they would actually honor this request.
Ultimately it doesn't matter. The system is stacked against non-management. They have multiple levers and metrics to use against you, warning or no, to justify a low rating and subsequent dismissal.
It’s completely made up and has almost no relation to your work. Basically most managers are trying to give everyone meets. Honest question- other than comp does anyone care at all about annual reviews?
@bf, I’m not @as, the previous commenter, but he means that if you look at the $ range for your position and find the midpoint (50%), and your salary is that $ or higher, you will get zero merit increase. I don’t think it’s quite that bad, but it is a known fact over many years that the higher one is in the salary range for a position, the less % one gets for salary increase.
@as what does that even mean? 50% of what? In the past they've said no merit raises for those over $250k, but I haven't heard that this year
@ab sometimes the pool is a little higher. Meaning you might have to give an IM in one group so another group can get the exceeds.
Some managers now just give everyone meets so they don't have to deal with this stuff. Unfortunately, that su-ks as well for high performers.
I now have Stockholm syndrome and will be happy with a meets. Luckily, it doesn't really change comp
@ab I think we’re in the same group lol
Calibration? You must be joking.
Regardless of rating if your over 50 percent comp you get 0 merit so don’t push too hard.
When I was a manager (before the takeover of JPM), I rated several folks exceeds (or what used to be a 5) - I rated them based on actual performance, not some arbitrary rating category needing to be met. Those days are over.
You can hit it out of the park everyday, but someone else kisses @$$ better, you won't get the higher rating. That's not the WF of today...
If you want to be recognized for what you do and contribute, you'll need to find a better company.
Its very hard to rate anyone an exceeds. If you had 1 bad month out of 12, you will not be an exceeds. Exceeds means consistent every day, all year long, going beyond the expectations of your role, being a leader. Meets is still a very good rating and not an easily achievable one anymore, also our reviews are reviewed by our next level and their next level and if they dont agree with a rating then you'll be changing it. Thats how it goes, for my line of business anyway.
I'm actually curious about this one too. Had a manager tell a teammate they only gave 1 exceeds for a team of 40 and a lot more IMs. Teammate was angry as they got meets, when they were told they were one of the top performers during the review. so why not give them an exceeds if it supposed to be 15% of the team??
Someone will tell your manager that they need more IMs or more X, then your manager will have to flip a coin. Your manager doesn't decide the quotas. But chooses who goes into them