So true, total BS comments they come up with, "I have problem with managers artificially making up fake reviews to sc--w good performers. This typically happens to those who are not managers' favorites."
13 replies (most recent on top)
Being laid off IS a termination. After you get laid off, the employment verification report shows you were terminated. It does not mean positive or negative, it simply means your employment at WF ended. If you voluntarily leave WF, the report will still show terminated.
I’ll ask this question again - has anyone been terminated for cause at this bank? They give you a cr-p review so you leave on your own. If you don’t you get laid off. Laid off is not terminated.
The thing is, if this happens to you, you cannot save yourself. The ethics line and HR are there to protect the company, not to protect you. As soon as you report it, you will be labeled as a trouble maker. The executives and managers have so much power and control, and they know it. The only way to survive here is to lick their boots and brown-nose them. If you don't do that, you are expendable in their eyes.
@zhx+1tz9UIoT
"My Sr. manager gives me a lot of pressure to lay off certain employees because our resource budget is too tight. So I have to somehow magnify the negatives and marginalize the positives in their performance evaluation."
Same here, 100%. I was tagged to do the very same thing. Magnify the negatives, human error type stuff, real nitpicky stuff, in order to get a "list" for my mananger on who to lay off. Was hard to do as the team wasn't very big and we had suffered lots of reorg's and layoffs already and everyone was pretty much on an even keel.
"We keep certain employees by emphasizing many positives and ignoring the negatives. For the most part, my Sr. manager decides who to lay off."
Again, 100% true. In the end, the "list" that was created was used but Sr. Mgmt deviated on who they kept. I survived. It was location, years of service and by the looks of it, age that canned those people.
Su-ks.
I know that many performance evaluations are significantly influenced by dirty politics and favoritism. What many people don't realize is that this toxic attitude is prevalent not just among the line managers and/or mid-level managers, but directly influenced by the Sr. leaders of the department.
This happened to me. My manager wrote several fake accusations that I had never done. I complained to her boss and also provided many email evidences to prove that they were fake accusations. But I found out that her boss was also part of this unethical scheme. Then I reported the incident to the ethics line and sent all the email evidences along with it. The HR opened up an investigation and interviewed those two. Those two managers simply denied the wrong doing and the HR dismissed the case a few weeks later. I asked the HR guy if he read all the email evidences I provided. He said he did not have the time to read my evidences because his team was swamped by complaints filed by many other employees. Let me tell you how demoralizing that experience was to me. That's when I decided to quiet-quit, and started using a mouse jiggler. I really didn't care anymore. A few months later I was laid off. But, I felt a sense of relief knowing that I was no longer a part of this cesspool organization.
Manager here. In a way, it can be true, depends on how you interpret it. My Sr. manager gives me a lot of pressure to lay off certain employees because our resource budget is too tight. So I have to somehow magnify the negatives and marginalize the positives in their performance evaluation. Once their performance rating is lowered, it's easy for us to lay off those employees. We keep certain employees by emphasizing many positives and ignoring the negatives. For the most part, my Sr. manager decides who to lay off. I believe his decision is usually political, but I think sometimes it can be personal. You read between the lines.
I am also a COO manager. My Sr. manager instructs me who to keep and who to let go. He tells me what to say in their performance review so that we can get rid of those employees that he no longer wants to keep. The way I see it is that some staff associates have established good political connections with Sr. leadership while others have not. If the staff associates are not part of that political circle or they are not the favorite of Sr. leadership, they will be easily and quickly eliminated. I just follow my Sr. manager's instruction. If I don't follow his instruction, my job will be at risk, so I have no choice.
@dtv lol it has been documented and reported with clear cut evidence, some people just doesn't let you exploiting them.
how do your know they are lying? Perhaps the truth hurts. No one ever likes to be criticized especially when they think they are doing a good job l, but it is possible you just aren't performing as well as others. Now if it is a lie, document why you think it isn't a long with proof and make your case to HR or your bosses boss.
I'm also in coo and haven't had to lie to my people about their performance yet. There is a lot of push back about high ratings, but not much push to reduce people's ratings unless they have documented corrective actions. If they do, they aren't meeting my expectations, so a reduced rating makes perfect sense.
I am a manager in COO. 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.
It’s common in Technology. Indiamanagers do that all the time.