Based on the bell curve of ratings, if the company lays off a large percentage of the low ratings after mid-year, management will need to replace those poor ratings from the pool of Meets and higher. All this does is create a mandatory downward shift to backfill the now vacant poor rating spots. The job market is poor, more people being laid off adds more competition to already limited jobs. The climate around WF is as bleak and drab as our dirty unassigned cubes. Now there's talk of a 4-day mandatory in office - all to get more people to quit. Those who quit tend to be higher rated employees, perpetuating the poor rating backfill requirement. It's a horrible cycle.
13 replies (most recent on top)
@4nib+1tOOnUij, they did the exact same thing to me. They are liars and cowards. They do it knowing that we are no longer able to rebut their fake reviews after we got laid off. I am not sure if Karma will catch up to them because the evil seem to prosper at Wells Fargo.
Managers also fabricate bad reviews after laying off employees. This happened to me. I was in my 60 day non working period and my manager posted my mid year review. I was never notified that he completed it. The outright lies were horrible. Karma will catch up with them eventually.
Ethics at Wells Fargo, what's that? After all, this is the bank that created fake customer accounts, they are good at making up fake stuff. It is deeply embedded into the culture of corrupt management, and they don't feel anything wrong with it. Many managers are comfortable enough to give fake performance reviews anytime.
you clowns can down vote @pae+1tOOnUij
all you want, it doesn't change the facts. I've been here almost 25 years, the content of the reviews I have written has never been changed due to demands from on high. Not once. If you've bent over to keep getting checks, good for you I guess, but there's no need to throw shade at those that haven't.
First I think people need to remember how these ratings work. When your manager grades you it's not based on your performance even though that's what they will tell you, it's all a personal perspective for them. If you get a low score then that means your manager doesn't like you and is basically setting you up to get canned anyway so you're in a failed State and you need to start looking right away because you cannot change your manager's mind. A meets is satisfactory your manager may not like you but they're not going to give you a hand out either they're just impartial more than likely due to the corporate environment right now. Those who get exceeds or goes above and beyond those are the people who whine and dine their managers in the evening or seek to make them personally happy with them you got to remember a lot of the people that work for Wells Fargo for the 10 plus years built their careers on personal friendships not on professional accolades so that is how managers approach the rating it's also why Americans get low rankings while every Indian in the bank gets above and beyond.
I am also a COO manager. I know for a fact that many COO Sr. managers and COO mid level managers frequently manipulate the employee reviews with exaggerations and forced ratings. It is more common than you think. The political environment in COO has been very toxic and backstabbing games are rampant. The only way we can protect ourselves is by joining certain political groups. Once you are part of an old boys' club, no question is allowed against Sr. managers. At this point, I am ok with lying as long as I keep receiving my paychecks.
Poor ratings used to mean something, now for any WF employee it is a reflection of the failures of the company, management and HR career support.
In contrast, look at IBM. They are planning to layoff 15k and are communicating openly about their regrets in having to save money, their admittance that management got bloated (too many layers), and their intent on voluntary termination packages and other approaches.
WF has not openly communicated anything, leaving everyone guessing for years wtf is going on. This is a terrible company and haven't seen anything lately to suggest it will emerge from its own harm and become a leader in anything.
That's weird because I'm also a manager in COO and I've never once had to lie in a review or make things up. What I have had to do is not assign a higher rating based on their performance (e.g. I rated them as 'Exceeds' but in calibration they demanded Meets instead) but I never changed the content of the review. Just the rating. Maybe your upper managers su-k, but not all of them do.
I am one of the COO managers in Texas. I can speak my experience firsthand. We usually get rid of the employees who are not our favorite. Sometimes we have to make up stories to artificially lower their performance ratings. You have to understand that if managers can't come up with headcount reductions, managers get sc--wed and potentially lose their job. We managers also have a family to support and a mortgage to pay. Don't blame us, we got to do what we got to do. Sometimes managers have to lie to survive. My executive bosses are doing the same thing to survive. If you are in our shoes, I am sure you will lie to survive too.
Take one candy bar and move on, plebe. Make sure you monitor outlook closely just in case any confidential meeting invites come in.
Employee Appreciation week, what happened to all the bullsh-t spewed during that time.
Mo--ns downvoting this must be the next on the chopping block.
Oh, so we're just doing Goldman's thing now lol