This reminds me of a previous employer that mandated strictly 20% employees must be rated as underachievers and get a 0% COL adjustment i.e. a pay cut in the face of inflation. But, my whole team was important to our successful year. Yet, someone is forced to take the pay cut.
It's a system predicated on the false assumption that the bottom 20% by some arbitrary ranking aren't fulfilling their job duties nor instrumental to success. It exists to codify and justify whatever the employer desires, which was in this case and as often is the case--underpaying employees.
In my experiences, performance reviews are 5% facts and data, 35% writing skills, 60% company predetermination of your worth and compensation.
In every case I've been involved with so far it boils down to arbitrary feelings with only a slight correlation to actual performance. You get a good score if they like you.
So, the system is simply you get a raise based on feelings. Why have the performance reviews? The performance system is used to backdate reasons for the a priori decision if required for legal reasons. It maintains the illusion that there's something to be gained by working harder when that's simply not true.
In such a system, you re-roll bosses until you get one that likes you. Job hop. Move around laterally inside a company. Be a social chameleon. It's much more effective to just ask more women on a date (bosses in this analogy) than to keep trying with the same one because people don't generally change their minds.
@workreform@maegul It is really hard to objectively rate people. On an assembly line if you keep up with the line you are as good as everyone else, if you hold the line back are you worse or does the line need redesign? If you are an engineer it can be years before we discover how many mistakes you made. If you are a salesman did you miss your numbers because the economy is bad or because you are bad?
I had a great boss in a huge company like this. Scots man. Socialist. But he did not grasp the sole purpose of the performance review, was to manage away pay increases.
@workreform@maegul I've heard of that, but I keep wondering why you hire the bottom 20% in the first place. There is plenty of research - not the "this is how we interview/hire" blog posts that people read - on how to interview an hire. If you follow those you won't get most of the bottom 20% in the first place.
instead of you telling the employer that they have to prove their value or the deal is off.
What?
Performance review is from the employers side, obviously.
There is nothing stopping from you to walking into your boss' office and telling them that you're not getting paid enough for the work you do. Then either they pay you more or don't and you find a better job.
The insane shit you people make up. Performance reviews are about your performance and career growth. Are you being a pain in the ass? And what do you need to do to get a promotion are the key points to go over.
If you aren't having that conversation you are doing yourself a disfavour.
So far I haven’t had to deal with under performer. I got 2 high performers that I could promote. 3 that got promoted outside of my domain (I didn’t have senior positions available to promote those). I also have employees that are doing their jobs just as it should - which is also good in my opinion. Everybody is happy so far. I have to push a bit my reviews as higher management is puzzled by the absence of poor reviews but that’s my job I guess.
Should I be confronted with a low performer what are you propose I do? Leave it as it is? Others - including myself - would be compensating because we don’t get less work.
I’m not talking about some low energy or personal concerns which can effect temporarily someone but a true issue that lasts over a year.