Let me clarify something... I'm not saying that there's not a target percentage for the distribution of ratings, but I absolutely don't believe that it's impossible to work to earn any rating you are willing to work for.
Sorry, while I agree that everyone has the ability to be a 1, under the right circumstances, you may be deserving, but not get it. If there are more extrordinary performers than there is room for, a potential 1 could be rated a 2 because of the HR quota. There is a quota (a percentage breakdown) and managers (I beleive it is at the third line) are required to abide by these quotas. The obvious exception would be if there simply weren't any employees deserving of a 1 under a third line (or not enough). I agree with you in that it is bogus for someone to say that they were rated the way they were due to quotas. A good manager will fight for the ones that are deserving (granted not al managers are good managers) and will let you know where you are lacking if you don't measure up.
I have never received anything less than the highest possible overall rating from an employer throughout my professional career.
I have to say that at IBM, I have seen 1's unfairly apportioned during times when it is hard to recruit for certain job categories to the people in those categories, in order to incent them to stay around.
This really speaks to a inequity in market based pay scale increases, being glossed over by undeserved ratings, at the expense of high performing people in job categories where recruiting wasn't as difficult.
It also speaks to how much tolerance of a less than exciting and intellectually challenging job money will buy. I've occasionally been stressed by impossible deadlines negotiated by people with few estimation skills and glowing opinions of their ability to recruit for and staff a new project, but challenges have been few.
I guess this is part of the discussion I expected in the "you're more replaceable now" thread.
I understand the need to budget upside, and to ensure against "performance inflation", where everyone gets the highest marks (wouldn't that mean then that they were "average" -- 3's?), but the negotiation process sticks, if your manager isn't as effective a negotiator as someone elses, or if external forces which are not supposed to figure into the equation are permitted to come to the fore.
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy name Bush.
His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush.
He drank like a fish while he drove all about.
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale.
He can't spell his name but they never let him fail.
He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk.
And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam.
Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom."
Let the common people get maimed and scarred.
We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard.
Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
Twenty years later George gets a little bored.
He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord.
He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be."
So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late.
Kin folks said "Jeb, give the boy your state!"
"Don't let those colored folks get into the polls."
So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in.
Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win."
"Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation.
And that's how George finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
Y'all come vote now. Hear?
We probably are saying the same thing. So the basic concept is that ANYONE can be a 1 and if they are not, it's because their performance was less than the people who were rated a 1. Fair enough?
Ski, we are probably both saying the same thing, just from different angles. Yes, a 1 is attainable. Are the just there for the taking, no, just like everything else, you need to work for it (butt kissing helps sometimes too, present company excepted). My point is that there are 1s, but the numbers are limited by HR directive.
"Ski, I am not arguing that 1s are not possible, just that they percentage of 1s
are handed down from HR. I also did not argue the quality of raises, so I don't
know where you are coming from on that point."
Where I'm coming from is that people are claiming that they can't earn a 1 rating because of a "quota". I'm saying that is pure BS because EVERY individual has the opportunity to be a 1. There is normally a reason why people are rated a 4 and get a 1% raise and a "quota" is NOT the reason.
Ski, I am not arguing that 1s are not possible, just that they percentage of 1s are handed down from HR. I also did not argue the quality of raises, so I don't know where you are coming from on that point.
Nobody elected me to represent anyone, so I don't. And as far as I can tell, nobody elected Puppy Play to represent them either. The people she claims to represent aren't even allowed to post questions/feedback on the pension board.