Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

I agree with the previous response

IMO a 3.0 under the new scale is perfectly fine for a senior staff engineer. It is not a bad rating at all!

Don't know how 3.0 may affect a staff engineer though.

Latest reply "If the OP is a lower level engineer (below staff) he needs to find a new job/manager"

What if the OP was a staff or senior staff??

First, let me correct the ignorant- We used to have a 0-5 scale, now it's 0-7. Three USED to be an "ok" rating. I would say 3.5 is equivalent for the new scale (some groups don't allow .5 increments). The OP has two potential problems. His manager (or other more senior management) doesn't like him). Or maybe he's just not very good in his job.

If the OP is a lower level engineer (below staff) he needs to find a new job/manager

OP, there are zillions of cheaper Indian h1bs ready to replace you.

OP, you have until NXP merger to get a new job; it should be enough time.

I was told that if you have the same title for 10 years (not reviews), that was not healthy.

But, this was back before 2006, so your mileage may vary...

OP, you are better off looking for a different job.

4-4-5-5-5-6-6 are my last ratings. Will I get promoted in November?

SJO - " it used to be that a 3 was a worker doing an acceptable job, you now need to earn at least a 4 to be viewed as doing an acceptable job" - when we moved from scale of 1-5 to 1-7, hr published a table with equivalents between old and new. Per the table old 1-3 was supposed to be same as new 1-3. Old 4-5 was expanded into

new 4-7. So they said new 3 was same as old 3. From what you're saying are they applying totally different rules of interpretation? Are all managers even aware that they have to give the folks a 4 in the new scale? Are some mgrs blindly giving 3 thinking it's as good as old 3??

We have to keep in mind that Qualcomm went from a 1-4 rating system to a 1-7 rating system, so while it used to be that a 3 was a worker doing an acceptable job, you now need to earn at least a 4 to be viewed as doing an acceptable job. So if there are large cutbacks, a 3 is likely not safe, and even 4's could be considered depending on how liberal your department has been with review ratings. Some departments always rate high, but if the management is told to cut a certain % of staff, ratings could become meaningless, especially in departments who have inflated ratings.

I am not sure if other companies are using the 1-4 or 1-7 scale: you have to understand your companie's measurement scale to interpret the number meaningfully...

Ratings correlated to performance are erroneous. Ratings are the based solely upon how much your manager likes you and how many senior executive relatives you have.

3 is the new 2!

It's like the strip club, $1 is no good anymore, got to slip more $$ into the G string or risk getting tossed out the club

So, the scale is from 1 to 7.

1= you shouldn't even be here anymore (not meeting expectations)

2= expect a PIP and to be terminated (needs improvement)

3= expect to be laid off when times are lean or strategic realignments happen (consistently meets)

4= the realistic minimum each employee needs to meet to be left alone (consistently meets+)

5= you actually are contributing a decent amount, whether that is brute force hours (60+) or working smart (learn how to reuse stuff and minimize email/meetings without hurting work quality)

6= you're doing work at the next level and could be up for promotion in a a few cycles

7= you're definitely doing work at the next level and could be up for promotion in a few cycles

Everything is keyed to your performance review rating and market ratio. The rating is as mentioned above; the market ratio is how QC pays for your job versus how the industry pays for the job.

Low rating, low market ratio = don't expect much, at least you don't cost much

High rating, low market ratio = good merit increase, you're doing well

Low rating, high market ratio = no raise likely, you're not worth it

High rating, high market ratio = you've pegged the meter; you need a promotion, especially if you get a one-time lump sum with no merit increase at review time.

There are separate bonus and stock ratings to go with the merit increase rating; they should be related but not necessarily equal. Bonus is for the work you did this past cycle, stock is the carrot for keeping you in the future. If you get a low merit rating (3 and below), don't necessarily expect any bonus or stock. If you get a 4 or higher then you should see something.

None of this should be a surprise. Basically all companies have HR departments that follow the same table-based approach to merit/bonus/stock, all keyed from ratings. The ratings are argued in group sessions among managers, adjusted, and then people higher up in the management chain start fitting the population based on the aggregate pools.

Most individual contributors don't realize how the process works. It's no mystery. Do your job, do a little more than your job, have a good personality and be a team player helping others around you, learn some stuff, do process improvements, publish/contribute stuff, and actively manage your career/outcome, and you'll be ok. But if you expect to get high marks when you have to be told what to do, and you require lots of supervision, and you quit after 40 hours, and you don't try to learn anything, and you don't work for the benefit of the company, well you're a 3 maybe.

I have done a lot of reading on performance ratings and many companies really think 3 is a very solid

rating, you basically met all that was asked of you and bosses and HR at those firms consider it a

good rating indeed.

In an ideal bell curve "3" is a majority by a very long shot. Mathematically speaking "3" is the majority.

Given that a company is also made of people from the "normal" sample population, this should hold

true for a any company. Majority of employees should be a "3".

But reading from this thread about what happens in QC - seems like most people are trashing a "3"!

Does anyone know what is the % of those get a "3" and those who get higher at Q?

If % of 3 at QC is less than what the bell curve tells you it simply does not make sense.

I mean I look at everyone around me - company is made is not made of a majority of superstars!

Come on everyone who is trashing a "3" is out of their mind - it is a very dumb thing to say that.

Maybe only those higher than 3 are responding - and since they don't know the story about

the rest of the employees, they think everyone should get that. I think it's simply not possible.

BUT if it really happens - then there is something wrong with QC performance evaluation system.

May be it is setup like a classroom where everyone can score 100% on a test and get an "A"??

This thread is not conveying the full story. If indeed majority are above 3, then personal bias

of managers is creeping into it......thoughts??

Bring your competitor offer and the Q will offer you the moon and the stars

I have got 5's in the last few reviews and I may get a promo in this or next review. I applied for two competitors and got scheduled for onsite interviews after the initial phone interviews. Here is the question: is Q giving retention bonus to keep high performers when they show a resignation letter? My impression is that they will be "cheap" in any counter offer and they will be happy to let me go. I realized Q passed the point of no return and I plan leaving soon.

Ahh the good'ol days! I miss the time I used to get my money-sheet without a review at all ....

If most people in your group are rated as "3" performers, and there is a bonus and stock pool for your group, then I agree that everyone would likely participate in the distributions when profits are good. But if we assume that we are entering a period of staff reductions with lower profitability, then a 3 may no longer be a safe number, especially if there are a significant number of 4 & 5 performers in the group. Most of what I expressed was with an assumption of staff reduction in mind, not a smooth sailing environment as we have had in past years when the QTL revenue was a given.

SJO thanks again - "C) Finally there is an RSU stock pool, which is given out as a retention tool. Average performers are less likely to get stock as their 3 performance marks them as not key performers."

Everytime I got a"3" rating - I also received decent bonus & RSUs almost ALL the time.

Think this might be an uncommon case? Because going thru most responses the sense is that -- "3 is bad, does not get you bonus and RSUs and marks you out at not a long term potential for the company."

1) There are three compensation items that are used at the Fall review:

A) Merit increase, which everyone should get to some degree. Typically a % pool that can be slightly higher for good performers or lower for poorer performers.

B) Bonus pool which is dispersed to those who have contributed beyond the normal scope of their job, typically Qualstar earners would be considered for bonuses.

C) Finally there is an RSU stock pool, which is given out as a retention tool. Average performers are less likely to get stock as their 3 performance marks them as not key performers.

The line manager typically rates his people and then his marks are typically adjusted downward when reviewing with his manager. So in my experience, the line manager typically does not have the discretion nor influence to turn a 3 into a 4, unless he presents an extremely strong argument beyond the individual contributor not being happy with his rating.

Hello "SJO" --

1)you said " No stock, you are definitely being targeted", what do you mean by "no stock"?

2)Also it seems from your post that - ...line mgr decides on initial rating after talking to 3rd parties and applying other information available. Then the line mgr's mgr may adjust the rating... - I take this is after the big/secret deliberations meeting?

3)you also mention that line mgr's mgr could adjust rating based on "the current raise pool, the bonus pool, and for retention the stock pool". Could a 4 be downgraded to 3 because of these factors??

Thanks lots for info/op.

From my experience as a QC manager, the process is for the manager to rate his reports according to their effort, acccomplishments, work attendance and extra contributions. Part of this is influenced by 3rd party reviews, part by the manager's interface with each particular employee. Then the manager discusses his findings with his manager, who may agree or "adjust" his ratings influenced by general impressions of individuals, the current raise pool, the bonus pool, and for retention the stock pool. No stock, you are definitely being targeted as someone who is not considered as having long term value for the company.

anyone care to give a detailed description of what actually goes on inside these review meetings?

if tech lead is not a manager are they invited to attend to give or corroborate feedback?

and is the rating finalized by line manager in the meeting itself? would the other guys actually come to know the FINAL rating given by a line mgr to an employee that they discussed in the meeting?

Basically I am trying to see if the line mgrs at their discretion can decide to make it a 4?

Also in that secret meeting do people actually say HEY this guy should get a 3 not 4 etc??

You can disagree with your rating and HR and your upper management would get involved to review the process but in current climate if you contest your rating would only mean a sure inclusion of your number (yes, you are a #) in the layoff bucket. I have had unfair ratings that got resolved only when I changed group. I recommend you to get an offer from outside Q, that is the only way to change your situation. Well, unless you want to stay in your La La Land world.

OP again -- "Set clear expectations during review, meet them and add the extra effort to demand 4 at least" -when you meet your mgr during review, rating had been decided and can't be changed right?? this whole thing is a mystery...

You should do a better job promoting your accomplishments on the self appraisal, specially if your line manager doesn't care about your career growth. Don't be humble in your appraisal, remember that this is a jungle, no one cares about you or your family. Set clear expectations during review, meet them and add the extra effort to demand 4 at least. Your manager is part of your problem. Remember what was said below: the rating is 10% execution and 90% self promotion and politics (even better if you speak the same dialect and is from same village)

OP here. What is the extra effort/step up needed to go from 3 to 4?? I think I do my best and colleagues and counterparts from other groups seem perfectly happy with what I do so where could be the disconnect? Something lost in translation from those I work with and line manager and tech leads?? Or am I not self valuating correctly?

If you have never received a 4 now would be a good time to look. This recommendation is of course based upon the criteria form the last layoff. Additionally take an honest look at what you are doing? Are you busy? Is your work redundant? Is the prospect of not being busy in the future imminent? Assess honestly and plan accordingly.

I see many people in my department at the same title for years (including some principal engineers/directors etc). If you are telling me a senior engr is getting 4 or higher for years

and stays as sr engineer - does it at all make sense? Can some managers comment? What is the mystery behind the ratings? I got lots of 3's in a row and got good bonus&rsu's at the same time.

Easy to tell how this was written that it is a fake post .

Who influences the ratings - can you talk to your line manager to make a 3 into 4?? Sometimes the line managers are vague and in my experience they don't explain why the rating was three rather put polish on and say keep it up. If three gets you out isn't it their job to warn and tell you the reason behind so you can act on it rather than saying it's ok? It has happened to me a few times.

Damn, I had taken 4 weeks family leave this year. Have been getting mostly 5's before. Hope nothing happens. Our site has not had a lot of work for past year, though. No project yet and a lot of people doing nothing (and people somehow still got promoted). If I hadn't taken leave, I would have still been sitting around doing mostly nothing.

I was layoff in Nov 2015 exactly because of a 3 rating with previous ratings of 4, 5, 5, 4. The reason for a 3 was a tragedy in the family made me leave the project for 3 weeks at the peak. During the May review I asked for a 4 rating and my manager brought up the impact of my absence and gave me 3. In September an Indian VP called for a conf room and told me this on the phone: "I have great news for you, please come to this room!". Then he gave me the severance package. I said "Thank you" and left immediately with no questions. I was able to find a good job and relocate in 2 months. The coworkers in the group told me later that they hired multiple guys (8) in BDC. So, this is just to warn you that you will be laid off, plan accordingly.

yes 3 or below is on layoff list. this not mean you are not good just mean not working good with current manager. Many smart educated of the people at Qualcomm. If you have the 3 or lower find manager or the situation that will best utilitize your best skill and the talent. This is the america so capitalism is the way which comes from the freedom. Best advice is try to find the manger or person to develop the skills and do your best to be of the service to them. This is the win-win situation.

3 means you are on the layoff list

Yes, 3 puts you FOR SURE on the layoff list BUT they cannot put you on "performance improvement" which would happen with a 2. You will get severance package with 3, and with 2 it may not be the case. Either wait for the layoff package or change group or change company. This is as serious as it can get. Act now and get prepared. There is life outside Q.

3 is not good, if you are not getting 4's or better there is an issue.

3 puts you on layoff list.

Of course the rating is 10% performance and 90% politics.