OWD
O
E
VG
G
NI
NSI
20 replies (most recent on top)
I was told by my department manager that I was the top performer in my rank group and he was able to get me just under the HiPos. I told him that Potential and Performance were separate concepts and she told me they were actually tied together and there was an expectation to place persons in ranking meetings in the order of potential.
She said that if I was the top performer again next year, the highest I could achieve was exactly the same ranking, unless enough HiPos transferred out. Also said I could drop if my HiPos moved into the group.
Every description of ranking says that ranking is based on performance but the top of each rank group is reserved for High Potentials that typically have no clue about their current job scope.
A significant factor in the assessment category you are given is your potential. While HR and management will never say this, it is clear through their actions and the data. That is the problem and reason for so much dissatisfaction by employees. And what makes the assessment process/meeting a sham.
We hire "top performers" and then start telling them they aren't the best. As we have reduced HC, the buckets have gotten way tougher. Those in NI are frequently decent employees who just need a bit more oversight, so it's hard to deliver a VG / G / NI message to all but a few - they are all meeting or exceeding job expectations. And E's are amazing folks so it's a personal disappointment for many to not be the best of the best. (Interesting observation, many folks get upset they are only O and not OwD.) But yes, about half of folks get an O or E message.
Publicly they claim every group gets average of 50.
Never believe that a group of Development Planners, nearly all sponsored HiPos, will allow half the group to end up below 50 and 5% NSI.
That is just as believable as the rank group of CL36 to CL40 having half their group below RG50 and 5% NSI.
Is it true what they person saying below O+E makes 50% of population? That doesn't really add up, based on the RSU distributed and the comments I hear from folks... I believe they rank everyone with target average RGP of everyone in the ranking group as close to 50 as possible.
I’m confused. Why does it seem like 90% are dissatisfied with their rank when 50% are O & E?
I recall my department head saying we came out OK because our group could average 53. I asked if any group took a hit to get us the 53 and he said that it must mean SHE was 47. I doubt they get a target as low as 40, but I am sure they do not get 50.
When is the PDS results disclosed to the worker bees after review?
O - 20-25%
E - 20-25%
VG - 20-25%
G - 15-20%
NI - 15-20%
In practice, O+E is the top half. That means NI ends up at 15% G ends up at 15% and VG is at 20%. I might be off by 2-5% on each of the categories, but that’s roughly the distribution. I don’t know what the poster talking about average RG #s… they must be retired because we don’t use #s, everything is the groups and SSHE doesn’t have anything holding it back compared to other departments.
Each department is allocated a target average so the distribution is different for each department.
Development Planning target average around 60 and SHE target average nearer to 40.
Corporate wide near 50 is acceptable average.
8% for NSI this year.
@ohx+1sMzMONT
I meant to suggest G was at 20%. But now that I think about it, there was 1 year were it was very small, like less than NI/NSI.
Maybe as a general comment. In my experience I've always witnessed very fair and balanced assessments meetings (not withstanding that its a problematic mechanism). But were I've seen some weird things is with setting up the groups. Likely for every (slightly) upward biased group there is a downward biased group somewhere else.
@ncf+1sMzMONT Thanks for the info. What have you see for Gs?
To add to my post below:
OWD not mandetory (can be zero) but usually 1 or 2 per group - may be more for very large groups.
NSI started at 8%, then 5% and last year 3%... but heard this year it's up again (but due to job moves not representing direct reports in assessment sessions this year)
The last 3 years I've consistently seen E and VG being a bit bigger than 20% , OWD+O a bit under and NI+NSI more like 15%.
But perhaps it was an agreed deviation and still rolls up to 20% per category for the larger population.
It is 20% in each of the 5 catagories. There would be no point having 5 otherwise, 3 would be enough.
Depends on your age and expense, primarily.
So it varies based on that.
Also having independent thought processes. That hurts.
First of all it is not 20% in each category, but why would yo think that a normal distribution does not apply to the XOM workforce?
20% in each of the 5 bands. You don't understand the system? A normal distribution around the midpoint, whilst true in 95% of any other dataset and nature, doesn't apply to ExxonMobil employee's population performance.
That would be interesting to know. I’ve got people telling me their boss is saying they will fight for E for them. Or the employee demanding E. Was told this year the buckets were pre loaded. This year has been very expedited and thrown together. These Xom royalty are very excited about pioneer and all the pds treasure that is coming.