Bob F

Last quarter I ran performance reviews for 4,200 employees. The process takes six weeks. Week 1: employees write self-evaluations. Average length: 1,200 words. That's 5 million words of self-assessment. No manager reads them. I know this because the system tracks time spent per review. Average: 4 minutes. You can't read 1,200 words in 4 minutes. You can write a rating in 4 minutes. That's what they do. The ratings are on a 5-point scale. 1: "Does not meet expectations." 2: "Partially meets expectations." 3: "Meets expectations." 4: "Exceeds expectations." 5: "Significantly exceeds expectations." Nobody gets a 5. 5 requires three levels of approval and a written justification. I designed it that way. If everyone could get a 5, the scale would mean something. We can't have that. The real scale is 3 to 4. 3 means "you still work here." 4 means "you still work here and we'd mildly prefer you didn't leave." The difference in raise between a 3 and a 4 is 1.2%. On a $90,000 salary that's $1,080 a year. $90 a month. Before taxes. After taxes it's about $62. That's the financial value of "exceeding expectations." $62 a month. A streaming subscription. We have a forced distribution. 15% must be rated 4 or above. 70% must be rated 3. 15% must be rated 2 or below. This is non-negotiable. If your entire team is exceptional, 15% of them are still "partially meeting expectations." If your entire team is mediocre, 15% are still "exceeding." Performance is a bell curve I drew on a whiteboard in 2019. Reality has to fit the curve. Not the other way around. The calibration meeting is where this happens. Every director in a room for four hours. They negotiate ratings. "I'll give you a 4 for Martinez if you take a 2 for Chen." "Chen just shipped the biggest project this quarter." "I know. But I need my 15%." Chen is now "partially meeting expectations." His manager will deliver this rating in a 30-minute meeting. She'll say "this doesn't reflect my view of your work." She's right. It reflects a horse trade in a conference room she wasn't invited to. Chen will ask what he can do to improve. His manager will say "keep doing what you're doing." He'll say "but I got a 2." She'll say "the rating system is holistic." Holistic means "I can't explain it." Nobody can. That's the point. Three people on the 2-rated list will be placed on Performance Improvement Plans. A PIP lasts 60 days. No one has ever passed a PIP. I don't mean it's difficult. I mean the outcome is decided before the PIP begins. A PIP is not a path to improvement. It's a paper trail to termination. HR needs 60 days of documentation. The PIP provides 60 days of documentation. I call this "supporting our people through growth opportunities." After calibration I compile the results. I tell the board that 85% of employees are meeting or exceeding expectations. This is true every year. It was true by design. I designed it. Last year a manager asked me what performance reviews actually accomplish. I looked at my notes. They accomplish: Five million words nobody reads. A number between 1 and 5 decided in a room the employee will never enter. A raise that wouldn't cover a gym membership. And a paper trail for the people we'd already decided to fire. I didn't say any of that. I said "employee development is our top priority." He transferred teams. I noted it as "healthy internal mobility." The review system was installed in 2019. It has not been reviewed. I get reviewed using the system I designed. Last year I rated myself a 4. My manager didn't question it. She used the 4 minutes. As long as the graph goes up and to the right.

getting femaledatingstrategy content on IG reels lmao

Accurate AF 😏