Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't worry about it. You could talk to your supervisor and ask for a more detailed explanation, but unless it affects your pay, I would wait until the next review to compare. My boss says it takes at least a year to settle into a new position after a big change, which makes sense to me. Though honestly, I feel like you should have been given some slack in that regard.
People come and go from depts all the time and budgets are different a year from now.
I have never seen a group keep the exact same staff in the same structure an entire year. At many companies, they hired new employees due to growth or let go of employees to cut costs in a bad year. Managers quit and leave for greener pastures and higher salary. They would no longer be able to give out those pre-determine raises to their old employees at their previous employer. That's only, if the employees didn't get poached or leave for more money from a competitor.
Change was inevitable. I am curious about a team that nobody leaves or joins, unless it's govt policy admin position.
What does that have to do with scores being predetermined? Oh you're assuming the scores have something to do with the individual. Nah, driven by the finds planned. Someone leaves. That's money that doesn't get paid out. Someone new comes? They automatically get 0 their first cycle.
I also work for a computer megacorp (perhaps the same one?). We also have a performance review system that has nothing to do with individual performance.
There is a write-in system where the manager can write whatever they want, so that part was fine for me. But the official metrics of "below average", "average", or "above average" are pre-set at the beginning of the year and very little can be done to move the needle.
I've been here for 9 months and everything seemed fine, but my performance review indicated that I was average in 3 of 5 metrics and below average in 2 of 5 metrics. I was livid, as I worked on some great projects and had really good results, so I complained to my manager and was told "we are only allotted so many "above averages", so we always try to give new people at least two "below average" to free up another "above average" to give to someone who we're trying to get promoted". And then said "but review aside, we're really happy with your performance". I asked around to other new people and they all had the same.
I had that happen to me a couple years ago. Under the old system I was always increasing, reaching a high of 3.71 (out of 4). Then they changed the way they do performance reviews, and put new parameters in place. Even though the max score was still 4, because they looked at different things, my review score went down to 3.4 even though I had had my most successful year ever.
I didn't worry about it too much since I knew it wasn't me, but the new system.
I also work for a computer megacorp (perhaps the same one?). We also have a performance review system that has nothing to do with individual performance.
There is a write-in system where the manager can write whatever they want, so that part was fine for me. But the official metrics of "below average", "average", or "above average" are pre-set at the beginning of the year and very little can be done to move the needle.
In my megacorp computer company, us managers were held to the sacro-sanct "appraisal skew", which mandates that 10% of the folks are to be below average, 80% are average, and 10% above average.
So in the 4th quarter of each year, we would have a managers' meeting with the 2nd line/3rd line. Each of us 1st-line managers would list all our employees, and "predict" the performance rating of that employee at appraisal time. If I had too many "above average" folks, I had to bring a few down to "average", or hope that a fellow manager would have a lot of "below average" folks so that the numbers would even out. You can imagine the horsetrading that goes on in those meetings.
If an employee does something extraordinary during the year and exceeds his pre-ordained rating, I could go to my manager and ask for an exception. Hopefully someone else did very poorly in another department and went from "average" to "below average". That would give me a free slot to bump my guy up.
Appraisals in corporate America are pure BS. And don't get me started on the "ranking" system...
What does that have to do with scores being predetermined? Oh you're assuming the scores have something to do with the individual. Nah, driven by the finds planned. Someone leaves. That's money that doesn't get paid out. Someone new comes? They automatically get 0 their first cycle.
I guess you have no movement at your employers.
I had one manager that gave me an $8k raise. Eight months into the new year, there was a reorg. I was moved to a new manager. Whatever my manager would have pre-determined for my raise had no bearing on my review 4 months later.
At another company, I had 4 managers in 2 years. It's not like a manager that quit is going to have an effect on my score or my teammates score. The new manager came in and had his own opinions on who was good and who was not performing.
One teammate went from a star performer to mediocre with the new manager. He quit, when he failed to get a raise. If it was predetermined by the previous manager that the guy is a star performer, why would he get a bad review with the new manager. Would the new manager call the old manager that left 2 months earlier at his new job?
I suppose he could message the other guy on LinkedIn, since I told him who the old manager was. I guess things are really different at companies, where the managers and employees stay the same. I have always been at companies, where managers moved up or on to different roles in the same company or left for greener pastures.
We have plenty of movement. Perhaps if you haven't experienced it you can't understand. But once you do, you will. I too used to believe a lot of things. Until I experienced things I would have said "could never happen" before I experienced them. But I seldom question some of the stupidity people describe because I've seen enough to know they aren't making it up.
One teammate went from a star performer to mediocre with the new manager. He quit, when he failed to get a raise. If it was predetermined by the previous manager that the guy is a star performer, why would he get a bad review with the new manager. Would the new manager call the old manager that left 2 months earlier at his new job?
This happened to my workgroup one year. They brought in a bunch of new managers, and one of their tasks was to "fix" the performance ratings of our group. I know this because one of my former managers told me. My appraisal was lowered by an entire point and I had to argue my case to get it raised a half point than what they wanted to give me. Our ratings were tied to cash awards and they wanted to reduce the payout that particular year. So predetermined ratings happen. The new manager claimed she consulted my supervisor (who had been on medical leave) but I knew she didn't...or she at least didn't take her input seriously, otherwise my rating wouldn't have been lowered by a point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
