Values Jam
Values Jam
BluePages
Search
HelpNow
Feedback Search comments/replies only
Help
w3 Home
Values Jam
Discussion Forums
Forum 1
Forum 2
Forum 3
Forum 4
31 Jul 2003
Values Jam time remaining:
Discussion Forums > Forum 2. A First Draft
Comments and Replies
To respond to the comment below — or any reply shown — click "Post a Reply." To view only
the comment or reply (and its associated replies) click "View this comment only." Clicking on a
person's name will display their BluePages page. (>) signifies a level of reply. You can rate the
content of the comment and/or any reply. (Even if it's your own!)
Jam Themes
Jam Ratings
Think Values
About Values Jam
Values Jam Help
Have something to say?
Why not join these
discussions now!
Value of candor
The family feeling
Subject: Job Performance
Comment by: Adrian C. Flores
Date: 29 Jul 2003 05:31:14 GMT
I have come close to resigning my management position because
my hand is forced to evaluate an employee based on a
predetermined number (more 3s than I would like). I am coached
by HR that performance is the key to making this determination. A
person performing at a 2 level should not be downgraded to a 3
because we need to meet management numbers. I can defend not
giving a 2 performer an increase, but I cannot defend giving a
View this comment only
deserving employee a 2 because I need to meet numbers. My
integrity and that of the company is at risk. I realize that these are
hard economic times and a company cannot give dollars in bad
times as freely as good times. However, those of us still working for
IBM are doing our best to make this company profitable and if we
do that then they deserve the 2 period, no matter what
management needs to meet numbers. We may not get dollar
increases, but we should be recognized as a 2 performer.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Benjamin D. Jones
Date: 29 Jul 2003 05:38:59 GMT
As an employee with thirty years of service to IBM, responding to
customers in the middle of the night, working overtime without
View this comment only
pay, the use of numerical quotas for performance is one reason
their has been a loss of innovation and motivation in IBM in my
opinion.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Michael W. Brown
Date: 29 Jul 2003 05:36:20 GMT
I agree, The 1/2/3 system is too coarse-grained and in the end
what does it mean anyway.
Adding the bell-curve of numbers of 1/2/3 that management is
able to give completely invalidates the system.
View this comment only
This system forces me a single conclusion: the best way to get
raises, promotions and awards is to be the smart guy in a
department full of losers. Unfortunately that's hard to come by
these days. Never ever join a department full of smart people.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (1 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Martin Scott Nicklous
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:36:01 GMT
I had to smile when I read this. A friend of mine once thought
along these lines and announced his goal of trying to "be a big
fish in a little sea."
Naturally, that doesn't guarantee the most stimulating job. I
don't think it helps much in developing networks with capable
people, either.
View this comment only
But it might help provide for a better immediate-term rating.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Garhett M. Rittenhouse
Date: 29 Jul 2003 05:52:14 GMT
I think Adrian nailed this one. You measure people based on
performance and reward them when possible, a bonus is not a
guarantee of pay. When someone performs well (or poorly for
that matter), they should be rated appropriately.
However Micheal, I think you are being rhetorical. Who wouldn't
want to work in a department with a bunch of smart? I would
View this comment only
love it! It would also raise your standard of performance. What a
great outcome.
IBM needs to reward and promote success. Keep up the Golden
Ring club and the Distinguished Engineers and all of the other
rewards. And, move some of those to Global Services while you
are at it.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Scott D. Hicks
Date: 31 Jul 2003 04:23:33 GMT
What is a Golden Ring Club? I've been with the company for 18
+ years in both marketing and services, and have never heard View this comment only
of this.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Michael W. Brown
Date: 29 Jul 2003 06:26:09 GMT
I do like to work in departments full of smart people - I do
right now. The risk is you may end up with an artificially low
rating and a few of those puts your job at risk, even though
you're doing the same quality of work that would get a higher
rating in another department.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (2 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Garhett M. Rittenhouse
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:47:20 GMT
Yeah, but that is the beauty of working with great people...
you are forced to strive to work harder. To work in a fantastic
group is a risk. You risk failure in the eyes of your peers
because they are outstanding performers. I think it answers
the Forum question, IBM has to be willing to risk failure in
order to compete and be the best. The market (not stock
market) only rewards the best. And, if we think, "I work with
smart people and I will be at the bottom of the smart people View this comment only
chain because they are all smart....forget it." then, I think we
will fail.
Besides, I think trying to have managers look across all of
IBM to rate Garhett (in Svc), next to Micheal (in the Linux
center) is an impossibility. The lead would have to be "kreska
of the HR world" to normalize the scores across all of IBM.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: James R. Kunz
Date: 29 Jul 2003 05:40:16 GMT
we need more levels like 1 thru 5 instead of 1 thru 3, with more
granularity of corresponding BAP/raises .. I have heard a lot of
times how how I was a "high" 2 .. but it didn't make any
difference in the BAP ...
View this comment only
or would more levels just compound the problem ..
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance: More ratings?
Reply by: Brian J. Cragun
Date: 29 Jul 2003 08:57:27 GMT
I disagree. It is much easier to function knowing you are in the
middle of the pack, rather than worry about being 2,3,4. A two
basically says, you're OK, keep going.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: John D. Swansey
Date: 29 Jul 2003 06:14:38 GMT
Adrian Thanks for your honesty. I would rather be told "no raise
this year because the economy is in the toilet" than have all our
ratings ratcheted down to meet the numbers, which has been
View this comment only
hinted is happening again this year. The zero-sum nature of the
ratings: all of us in the same department fighting over a
shrinking pool of raise money does not do much for teamwork.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Samuel J. Motes
Date: 29 Jul 2003 06:42:08 GMT
I can agree more. I think we have a lot of "self fulfilling
prophecy" going on. If I work my butt off and get a 2 or 3 and
I see a slacker on my team doing 1/10th the work,
commitmnet and effort I put in, what are the chances I will do View this comment only
it again? Not to mention the fact that is is harder to tell the
outstanding managers since everyone gets the same
distribution of 1/2/3 performers. Quotas on performance is a
very dangerous thing.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (3 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance and PBC fairness
Reply by: Gavin C. Lewis
Date: 29 Jul 2003 06:09:06 GMT
I absolutely agree. To impose quotas on performance within a
department is absolute nonsense. If a particular manager has
many employees performing at PBC 1 or 2 level, then that is the
rating they should be given. If that doesn't fit the "ideal
distribution" then so be it... If people feel they are regularly underrated in their PBC results, and consequently having reduced
chances for promotion etc., they will perhaps start to look for
other jobs where they are recognised appropriately.
The current PBC scheme also makes it far too easy for some
individuals to set relatively "easy" commitments which enhance
their chances of obtaining a 1 or 2 result, while others will battle
with a heavy-duty workload of more challenging commitments,
with no chance of a 1 rating, and a big challenge to even obtain a
2, given the definitions of those ratings. The fairness of PBC
View this comment only
commitments between individuals in depts and perhaps even
between departments needs to be monitored more closely by HR
(in terms of both the workload implied by the commitments and
the number of such commitments). There should be a clear way
to raise concerns about PBC "workload imbalances" such that
these are assessed thoroughly by an independent third-party who
is familiar with the technical skills required by the PBC
commitments in question. The responsible manager is not always
in the position to judge this fairly and correctly.
The basic principle and structure (Win, Execute, Team) of the PBC
scheme is good, but these deficiencies can make it very unfair to
those who take on a wide range of tasks in depts with many
different skills and responsibilities.
Hard work with many technical challenges should be appropriately
rewarded!
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance and PBC fairness
Reply by: James M. Rogowski
Date: 31 Jul 2003 02:20:19 GMT
I agree Gavin. My manager told me outright last PBC rating
period that he would have given me a 1, but there was only one
to be given out ... and another manager in the organization was
adamant that he had an employee that deserved it more. So
even though (according to my manager) I was a 1 performer, I View this comment only
was given a 2, lost significant money in Variable Pay and don't
have a 1-rating in my PBC that I can point to when job
searching. So why am I not supposed to be negatively affected
by this?
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: This is a significant problem for 1st line managers
at IBM Research
Reply by: Robert J. Schloss
Date: 29 Jul 2003 06:36:42 GMT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (4 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
I am lucky enough to work at a place where we don't even let
View this comment only
anyone except demonstrated superachievers get in the door (T.
J. Watson Research Center). The number of comments I have
heard from 1st and 2nd line managers about how difficulty the
forced distribution of PBC scores indicates that many are
struggling with this, and some departments are becoming
unbalanced because of this. For Research Staff Members, we
have a hybrid system, with annual PBC scores plus a ranking
system (with values of 1 to 100) that takes into account recent
year contributions. Perhaps if Variable Pay stays relatively lower,
people won't obsess so much about PBC scores...
I would like to see a multiyear experiment. Let part of IGS have
a forced PBC distribution, and part not, and look at results over
several years. Same for Research. That's the only way we'll
know if we are gaining more or losing more from the current
forced distribution.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: This is a significant problem for 1st line
managers at IBM Research
Reply by: Rolf Clauberg
Date: 30 Jul 2003 05:51:53 GMT
If you really have to achieve the required distribution within a
1st line manager's project, then it is a significant problem.
However, this is NOT what I have seen. At least in the Zurich
View this comment only
Research Lab distributions were achieved (and discussed
between 1st line managers) on 3rd line manager level. Only at
this level the number of employees was sufficiently large to fit
the PBC ratings into the required distribution.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: This is a significant problem for 1st line
managers all over
Reply by: Brian J. Cragun
Date: 30 Jul 2003 02:29:00 GMT
The problem is that even though the "curve" is said to apply
at a third level only, there is still plenty of pressure to push it
View this comment only
down to first levels. In other words, "Which of my people
should I rate as under-achievers, so you can rate all your
people as over acheivers?" Each manager wants to hold on to
every high rating he can keep.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: This is a significant problem for 1st line
managers at IBM Research
Reply by: Joseph J. Ciardullo
Date: 29 Jul 2003 08:37:22 GMT
Robert, As for the forced PBC ratings, in research does the guy View this comment only
with only 3 patents get the 3 when the other department
members have 5 -10 patents?
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (5 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Evaluating Researchers
Reply by: Robert J. Schloss
Date: 30 Jul 2003 05:53:49 GMT
As in the rest of IBM, we have job descriptions as well as
individual's PBC objectives against which people's results can
be judged. Patents are one factor of about a dozen that are
used in evaluting the contributions of people at IBM
Research.
As my colleague from Zurich said, in some cases the
distribution is done over a very large group; but first line
View this comment only
managers do spend a lot of time in discussions with their
managers trying to compare relative contributions, so that
these 2nd lines can be as fair as possible while living within
the distributions. Because the importance of Research results
might not be totally understood in November and December,
this makes *me* feel like I am asked to make very fine
distinctions with a precision that is difficult *for me*. (But
they are paying me to do dificult things; so that comes with
the territory).
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Alejandrina E. Fernandez
Date: 29 Jul 2003 06:48:14 GMT
Thanks for your honesty. This is an unspoken truth that we have
known about for years and does not speak well about integrity at
the top of our company, who actually agreed with the execution of
this unfair practice. While it is treated as a way to limit expenses,
View this comment only
it is not fair to the employees who deserve a 2 and don't get it
because the direction is to limit 1s and 2s to a minimum no
matter what the results where. This creates management
behavior which can't be trusted and completely destroys any
perception of integrity of the management team.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Sandi Mustard
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:09:08 GMT
I couldn't agree more Adrian. And the practice of routinely giving
someone a 3 for the first year that they are in a new job role is
also ridiculous.
This is true for a first-year manager or team leader (for example),
and especially true for a converted contractor, who continues in a
role s/he has performed for up to 2 years already, but because s/ View this comment only
he is in their first year as an IBM reg, is rated a 3 for
performance.
The incentive to strive in that first year as an IBM reg must be
entirely internal, because one is not being rewarded for good
performance by the IBM rating system.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Gabriele Avzaradel
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:13:42 GMT
I agree and therefore we should change the variable pay rules to
match the company's amount for payout. It wouldn't be fair to
pay more for the performer of an organization that tends more
tower 2's.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (6 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: David B. Bowden
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:21:26 GMT
I swas told by management that this was "skew" and we dont talk
about it.
Nice motivation here, regardless of how well you do, your
evaluation level 1/2/3 is dependant on a "bell curve skew" as to
who can get what.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - skew
Reply by: J. Kevin Lowe
Date: 29 Jul 2003 08:01:37 GMT
David's note below explains the cries of "I've been skewed"
coming from the bar at PBC time. :-)
Job Performance
Comment by: David B. Bowden
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:21:26 GMT
I swas told by management that this was "skew" and we dont
talk about it.
View this comment only
Nice motivation here, regardless of how well you do, your
evaluation level 1/2/3 is dependant on a "bell curve skew" as to
who can get what.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Norbert C. Warnes
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:39:12 GMT
The Performance Appraisal/Recognition process is corrupt and it
is unfair to all concerned. There is no objectivity, and most
damning of all, it has no basis in performance or the attainment
of unit business goals as expressed in PBCs. Let's review the
concept: business units define goals, goals are eventually
reflected in the mission statements (PBCs) of the individuals that
comprise the business unit, action plans (IDPs) define a course
and specific steps of individuals toward realization of business
goals, specific actions are planned based upon counsel of senior
View this comment only
business unit members (Mentors). If the description of the
concept is right, what's wrong? The process fails regardless of
what direction you start- goals or results. This begs the
question: why do these fictions exist? It probably has more to
do with avoiding litigation, i.e., damage control by appearing to
have a systematic and objective process in place. Objectivity
and true performance evaluations is a myth in the process as it
is practiced today. 1st and 2nd Line Managers tend to evaluate
their syncophants, toadies, and favorites more generously, and
can hide behind the Performance fiction.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (7 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: I see a pattern....do you ? IBM and its Bureaucracy
getting in the way
Reply by: Timothy Durniak
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:25:32 GMT
I've been here 21 + years, lived through the 1-5 ratings, 1-4
ratings, PBCs, 360s and a common theme (problem) remained
-"someone" (near or at the top) stating(edicting) that according to
some survey there MUST be a (performance) distribution of a
given shape for a given number of people. This message then gets
pushed down the management chain until you end up with stories
like this one. A root to this may lie in the need to feed a
bureaucracy the answer it wants (which is far far easier than
going head to head with it) - and since managers have less and
less time and more and more work, then the bureaucracy gets
View this comment only
what it asked for (deserves?). Now I pose a critical THINKing
question, one that someone at corporate headquarters can help
answer - do IBM's performance curves fit some statistical norm
too well? Are IBM's best asset (its people) being mismanaged in
order to have nice charts? I posit that if you give any group of
intelligent people the chance to understand the economics of the
business they could easily work out how to distribute "rewards". A
key component of that is trust - in both directions - that the
economic information is correct, and that the people are not just
looking for 'free' money. Summarizing to fit the theme of the jam
- values - Honesty and Integrity (which help reinforce trust) seem
to go a long way.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Vaughn R. Evans
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:32:27 GMT
I don't mind not getting a raise because money is tight but you
don't have to with hold the praise. The deceptive PBC process
introduces the same problems that the deceptive values confusion
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Stephan J. Roorda
Date: 30 Jul 2003 12:17:07 GMT
I agree as well. I don't want my contributions and hard work
minimized because the performance results have to fit a certain
curve.
However, if you are going to tie performance to pay you have to
have a way of "ranking" employees to determine the pay. I think
that there are several things here that IBM can do to improve
the current system. First, there should be some sort of
performance review that is not skewed and not tied to
View this comment only
compensation in any way. That way we can strive toward a
system that truly recognizes an employee's contribution.
Second, we need a different review to determine the variable
pay that is now tied to PBCs. The performance review could be
just one factor here, along with how the business is doing, and
how many other "smart" high performing people are in your
department.
Maybe those suggestions don't solve the problem but, at least
its a start thinking about a solution...
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (8 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Udo Kerwath
Date: 30 Jul 2003 01:01:01 GMT
Hmmmm.... performance not being linked to compensation? I
can't agree - nothing's more demotivating than "you're great,
but we don't pay you accordingly".
To me, it's key to ***fairly*** link performance to
compensation/promotion. The 1-2-3 bell curve on small
numbers is definitely not the right way. And, assuming
managers are courageous enough to spread the ratings if
appropriate, on the total poulation, you'll see the bell curve
again. And why not allocate the budget for raises to the "real"
distribution of ratings instead. Then in a department with top
people, the spread is not as high as in a more hetrogenous
department. This implies that managers do use the possibilities View this comment only
to spread and are not afraid of "hurting" someone (giving a 2
to everybody is actually hurting the ones that earned a 1).
Summary: stay with the PBC ratings, but don't force managers
to give ratings they don't want to give. The current system is
at least a good try to objectify the issue of performance vs.
total arbitrariness.
And why don't we put more people on incentive? If you look at
the eligibility criteria, it looks like only customer facing people
have "earned" it. There are some others also contributing to
company's success :-). To me, that's the next step to high
performance culture.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Frederic A. Clark
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:40:23 GMT
I asked my manager if there were a restricted number of 1's 2's
and 3's, and he lied to me. He said he was not held to any quota
system.
View this comment only
Thanks for confirming my fear.
Unfortunately, I can't trust my manager anymore.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Timothy Durniak
Date: 30 Jul 2003 01:27:35 GMT
Whoa! Its not fair to your manager to tar him/her with the same
brush - have a new (frank) discussion on the topic - citing this
forum. I have had management chains that used "quotas" only
as a spot check of how well they managed, and if the bell curve View this comment only
wasn't there they did some checking - but honestly they did not
stick to any quota (it as seen as a stupid thing to do). But I have
also had managment chains who 'gave up' and accepted the
edicts to fit some quota (figuring it was easier not to fight).
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance and lying
Reply by: Wolfgang Singer
Date: 30 Jul 2003 11:22:39 GMT
I have been lied to several times by a few managers (which was
always very disappointing). Since we claim to be (and are) one View this comment only
of the most ethical companies, I would recommend to apply to
this kind of managers the 'three strikes and you are out' concept.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (9 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance and lying
Reply by: J. D. Powell
Date: 30 Jul 2003 01:09:29 GMT
I have a strong inclination towards this "3 strikes" approach.
However, I believe it should apply to all of us, not just
managers. None of us should be immune from behaving in
accordance with our core values and, I believe, we need to
have the guts to deal (use our disciplinary process and, if
necessary, part company) with anyone who persistently
behaves in a way that is contrary to our core values.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance and lying
Reply by: Douglas M. Free
Date: 30 Jul 2003 10:37:20 GMT
One thing I've found to be a strong positive in IBM's values is
honesty and integrity. The policies and procedures to ensure
fairness are extensive. So, I believe in "innocent until proven
guilty".. and I trust that our investigative processes do seek View this comment only
the truth. But, if an employee (manager or not) is found to
be deliberately lying - why give them "3 strikes"? Once is
enough if the intention was to deliberately mislead.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Ilya M. Girin
Date: 29 Jul 2003 07:44:04 GMT
Thank you, Adrian, for your honesty! The best way to measure
performance is to get rid of all these numbers whatsoever: even if
1 or 2 gives you no raise at all your manager can easily give you View this comment only
3 just to show how he/she doesn't like you. I passed through
these exercise in the former Soviet Union and was amazed how
much a lot of thing are similar to that country!
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Keith E. Kistler-Glendon
Date: 29 Jul 2003 08:09:45 GMT
WOW!!!
Your comment has corroborated something I've long suspected that there is an inequity in the performance rating system which
basically amounts to outright FRAUD!!
Last year, I was told by my PDM I had exceeded my Utilization
target - attaining 116%. I had NO negative feedbac, unsolicited
positive customer feedback, great accolades from members of my
management team... and had consistently demonstrated
leadership and value to the practice and the organization... I
recieved a 2.
Why? Because "It's been a tough year, and there's only so much
money to go around"
Ah-ha.
View this comment only
Well, it seems to me that when the market conditions result in
"only so much money to go around" the effect should be that
those rated a '1' will get a smaller bonus than they would had
conditions been better.
But what I'd suspected and what I'm hearing in your comments is
that in FACT what happens is that people who are deserving of
the highest rating are "downgraded"... and on what basis I
wonder? Does the entire performance evaluation process then
basically become a popularity contest?
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (10 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
STARK evidence of how far from Basic Belief #1 we've strayed as
an organization!
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Barry L. Eberly
Date: 29 Jul 2003 08:10:52 GMT
Yes, the numerical rating of employee to fit some ideal curve, is
demoralizing. Much better is rewarding good behaviour. I like the
new "Thanks!" program, where employees can give others an
award for work beyond the call of duty. It helps to have a way to
pat each other on the back. I recommend everyone give it a try.
It helps focus on what is good, and takes your mind off the PBC
scores.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - "THANKS AWARD"
Reply by: Mark C. Waitkins
Date: 29 Jul 2003 09:12:27 GMT
Funny....I was told by a director who i helped that he tried to
give me a "thanks" award, but that my division doesn't
participate. BTW, I work for Corporate!!!
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - Respect for Employees
Reply by: Gaye B. Carter
Date: 29 Jul 2003 08:22:34 GMT
I am glad to see there are still some managers at IBM with some
integrity and are willing to stand up for their employees.
Sometimes I even wonder if it is really worth the time to have
PBCs if managers are not willing to give employees what they
deserve or they are forced to downgrade ratings based on
distributions (and usually give employees lame excuses for lower
ratings). IBM needs to return to the basic beliefs, esp. respect for
the individual. I understand that economic times are hard but
management needs to find a way to reward their employees and
improve morale of the teams. Saying "thank you" does not cost a View this comment only
penny. With unrealistic schedules and understaffed teams, we are
still expected to complete on time... no matter what it takes...
which usually means excessive overtime and be "glad we have a
job" IBM has alot of smart folks working for them who would like
to have time to be innovative..... but that has not been the case
in our area. You don't have the time to take on more work or even
to try something new. I am afraid that IBM will continue to lose
good, talented people if they don't change the way they treat
their employees. I understand that this may not be the case in
some areas.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance: A Victim's Perspective
Reply by: Ken Dugdale
Date: 29 Jul 2003 08:57:52 GMT
I have been a victim of this type of action three times, that I have
been told about by the manager anyway. Having been tossed
around between 15 managers in a 6 year span, the only thing that
kept me working at IBM was the knowledge that I would be with View this comment only
another manager within the year and could attempt to prove
myself all over again. So, I can certainly relate to your comment
about this type of "quota" destroying any loyalty to the company.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (11 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance - adjust the curve after layoffs
Reply by: Stephen Perelgut
Date: 29 Jul 2003 09:14:43 GMT
Adrian has hit on a very important issue and I'd like to add one
more thought. As we go through various re-sizing and reallocating exercises, we (hopefully) are using merit as one of the
key criteria. If all the poor performers leave an area, how can you
(fairly) put the remaining staff onto any sort of curve.
View this comment only
In other words, how can IBM justify telling someone that they
were a '2' performer last year, they did better this year, but
they're going to be ranked as a '3' performer. And, please, don't
offer the excuse of "raising the bar" because it's more about
fitting curves than raising requirements.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Mark Eiland
Date: 29 Jul 2003 09:49:27 GMT
Doing PBC reviews is the most painful part of a manager's job
because of the skew ("quota") system used by IBM. People should
have expectations set and be measured against those
expectations. If they meet and exceed those expectations they
should be recognized for that accomplishment not penalized. Each
manager should strive to develop high performing teams where all View this comment only
employees meet and exceed all expectations. If this goal is
reached the manager should not have this quota system hanging
over their head. How does that motivate anyone? What does it do
to the integrity of the manager that has to give a '3' to an
employee that has done everything asked of them and then
some? It's splitting hairs to meet a quota. It's a lose lose situation.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Martin Scott Nicklous
Date: 29 Jul 2003 10:06:59 GMT
Adrian,
Thank you for bringing this up. I think you have addressed one of
the biggest sources of grief within the entire IBM system.
As implemented, people work to achieve written goals defined in
the PBC commitments. So far, so good. However, the imposed
rating distribution prevents people from actually being rated
according to the degree of goal achievement reached. Only
through luck will the rating distribution as measured by actual
achieved goals match the required rating distribution passed down
from above . This leads to a very high degree of frustration in
managers and employees alike.
This seems to violate the value or principle of integrity. At least I,
as a first line manger, feel that my integrity is compromised if I
have to give a person a lower rating than would be indicated by
their degree of goal achievement alone, and at the same time,
have to explain the lower rating only in terms of his or her goal
achievement.
The PBC system results from a particular view of behavior (set of
values) that I really am not sure that I understand.
On the one hand, we want to set goals and then strive to achieve
them. It is logical, open, and honest for me to rate according to
View this comment only
the actual degree of goal achievement. Everybody should, with
his/her manager, set tough goals and strive to achieve them. This
is the value of striving to achieve, striving to do the best we can
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (12 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
for the company. And managers naturally need to have the goal
of setting appropriate goals. I understand this part.
But how does the idea of an imposed rating distribution fit in? It
puzzles me. This seems to be an idea of competition among
colleagues for rewards. Is that what is intended? Do we want to
nurture a value of competition amongst ourselves? If so, it should
be brought out in the open by all management levels and declared
as such.
It might be some relief if the target rating distribution would
simply be made public knowledge. That way, managers could
explain that the lower rated person reasonably accomplished his/
her goals, but the other person accomplished his goals better, so
the other person gets the better rating. It would be clear that we
are in competition with each other irrespective of the written PBC
goals.
If the goal of the imposed distribution is simply saving money,
then it would be better to simply abolish the imposed distribution
and reduce the available money for raises & variable pay instead.
I am sure that people could understand hard times = less financial
reward as long as they get a fair rating.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Todd S. Chase
Date: 29 Jul 2003 10:51:15 GMT
I guess I have to be in the unpopular minority here and stand in
front of this freight train of notes. I would make a few points in
the opposite direction to get people thinking:
1. Many people who've commented to this chain of notes agree
with the concept of distributing money around unequally, but
don't accept the PBC rating that, in effect, does the same thing.
2. The vast majority of people get '2's. The '1' and '3' ratings go
to either a truly outstanding performance or someone either
struggling with or starting a new job or level of responsibility. The
person who said they were given a '2' with a record of no
customer complaints and slightly over 100% attainment sounds
like a '2' to me also! To get a '1' takes a hell of a lot more than
that - '2' by it's nature captures very many of us - it's the vast
middle zone.
3. The law of large numbers states that if you take a big enough
sample, the sample will fit a distribution curve. The standard
deviation (difference from top to bottom) may change, but there
is still a curve, not fit upon them by IBM or their manager, but
imposed by the nature of the universe. The question then
becomes how many ways are you going to split up that population
to 'grade' them , which becomes largely a matter of choice and
complexity. For instance you could just have two levels (Pass/
Fail), you could have 5 (A/B/C/D/F), you could have 3 (Our
current system), or whatever. And my experience shows that the
numbers given to management by personnel, pretty well fit the
population, plus or minus, which reflects people changing jobs,
getting promoted and yes, lower performers. I've never asked for
a '3' to be given to a person to fit the curve - and indeed - IBM
View this comment only
does NOT have a quota system on PBC ratings. Any manager who
tells an employee that we do, is copping out because they're
afraid to tell them that they just didn't achieve to the level
required.
4. About 'raising the bar' or whatever other term you want to coin
to describe the process after a layoff eliminates the 'low
performers'. Firstly, sometimes people who are laid off are not the
low performers, but just in an area of the business that went
away due to waning customer demand, so in those cases you're
not really changing the curve of the department. But even if you
had god-like intuition and truly cut the bottom 5 people in a team,
the team remaining could not all be rated 1's and 2's with no 3's.
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (13 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
If you disagree with that statement, think about what would
happen over time after multiple layoffs... management would
have to say, "We're eliminating the '3' from the scale since we laid
all those people off." Kind of reminds me of the Spinal Tap movie
when the band wanted amplifier volume knobs that went up to
"11" instead of "10". The fact is you have to readjust the grading
scale to match the new population, and that means, in effect,
raising the bar of performance. Now the key is ... the
demotivation comes when you equate the higher performing
person with the ratings and the pay that the lower-performing and
now laid-off person - that's where the thing falls apart. So if you
continue to have a meritocracy, you can still take yesterday's '2'
and rate them a '3', but you have to pay him more than
yesterday's '3' was paid. This is something IBM hasn't really done,
although the salary surveys are designed to make sure we pay
competitively with the labor market, which in the end is the big
equalizer on pay anyway.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Garhett M. Rittenhouse
Date: 30 Jul 2003 05:48:35 GMT
Todd, I agree your analysis. Most of us are two's, the statistical
deviation applies to most large groups, and when you go
through a layoff, you are probably raising the bar (which I like...
as someone stated..I like working with more smart people).
However, you made a comment where the guy who was utilized
a little over 100% with no customer complaints...sounds like a
two. Here's the difficulty: his goal was 80% or in that area. He
was 32% overbooked in hours. And, being that only about 1% of
folks can ever attain that much more utilization, what was he
graded on? Are the guys who received "one's" that much over
the target? And, if a manager cannot describe the differences, it
is frustrating. There are other factors, maybe he was poor with
teaming (I don't know the guy so I am not saying he was), or
some other factor. But, it would be nice to have the objective
arguments reviewed by your manager. If he deserved a "one",
he deserved a "one"....but it would be nice to have some
View this comment only
objective viewpoint.
Two, just a comment on a comment made a little further down.
Julie mentioned cost of living raises for everyone in fairness. I
disagree, it takes away from the pool of funds for high
acheivers.
Three, DJ Williams compared this issue to sports. And, I think it
fits nicely. Raises are "nice to have". However, if we want to be
the most competitive company out there, then reward the
competitive folks. If I didn't do good, maybe I should lose pay
(and not just the bonus or raise). Probably a little cut throat
(and I don't think I provided a good solution Julie...sorry). But,
it is a thought because we all lose pay when we don't come
through on deals.
Finally, we are free agents and it is very exciting and
competitive....
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (14 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Christopher Nelson
Date: 30 Jul 2003 12:16:23 GMT
Todd, your analysis is correct. However, it misses one part of
the thread that I am seeing. I was taught (outside of IBM), that
an end of year employee evaluation was a means to help guide
the employee. It was considered a positive thing for establishing
mutual objectives. Yes it was also a method for determining
salary and rewards, but if done properly employees not
achieving could be turned into achievers. Our current process
seems to be disconnected from this. From the comments, no
one seems to really understand it, nor trust it. It may make
View this comment only
economic sense, but the value of the process is lost. When
people either don't understand a system or don't trust a system,
then both sides lose. I have never heard any good comments
about our PBS process. Its original intent - of getting a person to
think about what their objectives should be - has been lost. Now
it is an exercise in minimizing the damage it can do you. I think
IBM might be surprised if they stopped with a lot of the
bureaucratic BS that stifle us, and got people to start thinking.
This forum is a good example of exactly that.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Sandi Mustard
Date: 29 Jul 2003 11:08:52 GMT
Is this true? There is no quota system on PBC ratings? It'd be
nice to know for sure one way or the other, as there is some
very contradictory information out there.
As to your comment about "The law of large numbers states that
View this comment only
if you take a big enough sample, the sample will fit a distribution
curve", indeed this is true across many people, perhaps across
all of IGS, and perhaps even within a given IBM location, but I
don't think that a group smaller than 15 or 20 people constitutes
a "big enough sample" for this distribution curve to apply.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Barry F. Ruzek
Date: 30 Jul 2003 02:33:53 GMT
The mathematics claimed to support the current PBC system
are extermely suspect. Distribution curves and the law of large
numbers apply only to large random samples of a population.
To think that the typical IBM department is large enough to
support it own mini bell curve of performance is silly. The
degree of randomness in these samples is small to begin with
due to the selection process involved in hiring and would tend View this comment only
to get smaller with every removal of employees at the lowperforming end of the curve.
That said, the real demoralizing effect of this system is that at
its core is the belief that human beings are nothing more than
sample points in a game of statistics.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (15 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance - Solving the PBC problem
Reply by: Julie St James
Date: 30 Jul 2003 12:51:38 GMT
I think this thread is really good.We've identified the problem...
and this is a good forum to provide some solutions/
recommendations. What would a GOOD employee rating sytem/
bonus structure consist of? Should they be connected? Should
they be independent? Do people who work hard and contribute
deserve more then same as the person who skates by? What
would a "fair" structure look like...and would it be different by
geography or business unit? Let's get some ideas in here and let
management know we can do more than identify problems -- that
we can also provide solutions.
Here's my two cents - I agree that management should have the
discretion to give whatever rating they like. I think a four point
rating works, but let's all agree on what each point means, cause
right now, getting a three isn't "satisfactory", it's getting by, and
it that's not what it should mean, then we need to reconsider the
ratings. I think bonuses should be given out on merit - but that
everyone deserves at least a cost of living raise each year.
Additionally, a manager once told me that an employee's rating
should never be a "surprise" - if an employee's performance is
substandard the manager should be alerting the employee to
what they need to do to pull their performance up. Management
needs to commit to helping their employees succeed. Any other
ideas?
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - Solving the PBC problem
Reply by: Jonathan S. Czernel
Date: 31 Jul 2003 03:13:53 GMT
You're right, time to solve the problem. I am not an HR expert,
but I've read many books that have given me some insight into
how performance appraisals can work. A book that I would refer
you to is Bringing Out the Best in People (Daniels, 2000, p. 168176, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/
detail/-/0071351450/
qid=1059620741/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/002-9423665-1676041?
v=gla
nce&s=books&n=507846). I know most don't have this book
handy, so I'll summarize... I would also note that this isn't a
simple problem to solve, and I would urge individuals to look at
what other organizations have done to improve their employee
review processes. So, it's difficult to summarize in a simple
Values Jam.
First, a forced ranking system, while rewarding a few, "forces"
70% of performers to be average or below average. As an
employee who has always asked what one can do to achieve a
rating of "1" (and never received a reasonable answer), I agree
with what the author writes - that employees who never reach
this goal eventually will give up trying. Daniels writes "If you
give mediocre performance ratings to a high performer, you will
make that person a mediocre performer. If you give high
performance ratings to a mediocre performer, you will continue
to have a mediocre performer." (p. 168).
The solution? According to Daniels, to use what is referred to as
a Performance Matrix. This matrix, which can be updated "on
demand", ties an employees success to the success of their
organization. Each person has his or her own goals/targets to
obtain, independent of everyone else (unlike the PBC distribution
system which pits employees against each other).
The Performance Matrix is created by listing 6-10 key
"behaviors", or "pinpoints", each with an assigned weight. These
pinpoints are analagous to what we might include in our existing
View this comment only
PBCs, but trimmed down to 6-10 realistic targets; but unlike
PBCs, which are sometimes vague notions of what should be
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (16 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
done, these pinpoints are very specific items that may be easily
measured over the course of time. Things like meeting a certain
deadline for an assigned relatively long term project, closing
some number of support tickets, publishing some number of
patents, etc. There are "degrees of success' tied to each of these
objectives, and ahead of time a point system is established
based on these degrees that is well understood by the employee
and the manager.
At the end of an evaluation period, there is no question what the
final "score" would be. It is based on a claculation of degrees of
the "pinpoints" established, taking into account the weights of
each desired "behavior" (objective).
Since there is no forced distribution, everyone has the
opportunity to get a high score - those who don't meet their
objectives get a lower score, obviously..but the key is if they get
a low score it was more tied to their own doing, and not a forced
distribution system. And yes, linking this score to compensation
- a reward system for top performers (even if 90% of your
people are "top performers) - is acceptable and desirable. The
score would be directly coupled to what we might call "Variable
Pay...
This covers only some of the content of the book... I urge those
who have an interest in this to read this text in more detail, as it
covers additional thoughts re: compensation, bonuses, equity in
performance appraisals that I cannot cover or summarize here.
The focus is on using behavior science to shape the culture of an
organization through positive reinforcement.
Sorry if my post was a little lengthy, or if it was not entirely
clear.
Note: Reply formatted to fit web page.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - Solving the PBC problem
Reply by: Michael J. Kilmartin
Date: 30 Jul 2003 10:26:48 GMT
Over the years, IBM has required college degrees for certain
jobs, certifications from independent bodies (right now PMI project managment and CCNA - netowrking are big), why not an
View this comment only
independent external certification in People Management for
managers? Pass a test that includes, ethics, business
administration, organizational structure, and of course,
performance evaluation.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - Unshackle the managers
Reply by: Brian J. Snitzer
Date: 30 Jul 2003 07:13:28 GMT
As a first line manager with 2.5 years in the job, the PBC rating
process has been one of the most difficult things I ve
encountered. IBM brought me on board because of my skills,
moved me into management because of my capabilities, and
trusts me to make decisions impacting massive amounts of
business and the day-to-day lives of precious IBM people. When
it comes time to rate them, though, I get the sense that IBM
doesn t think I ll be tough enough, and so we ensure that I m
living within the skew. Of course it s not done at the individual
department level, but within the organization there s a very
active trade (1 s for 3 s anyone?) and lots of negotiation for
ratings.
What I would prefer is if IBM trusted me to fairly evaluate the
employees that it has trusted me to manage. If I m not doing a View this comment only
good job, or if I m handing out 2s to people that really ought to
be 3s, then, as a manager, *I* should receive a low rating. If we
re using the skew to manage to finances, we should simply
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (17 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
adjust the overall variable payouts once we understand what the
total breakdown is. If managers are going too easy on their
employees, and not getting enough out of them, that should be
handled by pushing for better PBC commitments from managers
and holding them responsible for meeting them.
Overall, I think we should spend more time managing to the PBC
objectives that we want to see, and evaluating to how we
actually achieved them. Forcing a skew on the evaluations takes
away the freedom of a manager, and communicates a lack of
trust in the decisions of that manager.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - Solving the PBC problem
Reply by: Peter J. Brofman
Date: 30 Jul 2003 07:11:31 GMT
Julie has it right - let's focus on solutions. Let's be clear whether
View this comment only
itis the system or how it is executed that is the concern...and
then how to fix it...
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - Solving the PBC problem
Reply by: Afsal C. Majeed
Date: 30 Jul 2003 07:42:06 GMT
I don't know why we abandoned the 360 degree evaluation
scheme. May be it's implementation was flawed.
The existing evaluation mechanism can not recognize good team View this comment only
players and good people managers. It is time that we take
relook at how managers evaluate how an individual has met his
PBC.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Theodore Y. Tso
Date: 30 Jul 2003 01:41:26 GMT
This is a really, really hard problem. It's especially bad when
groups that are relatively small (say 10-12 people) are asked to
follow a bell curve distribution. It's especially hard when a group
has been specially picked to have only the most top-notch stars.
In the ideal world we would have ratings that compared each
person against every other person in the company. Unfortunately,
that simply isn't possible. "Grade inflation" is bound to happen,
and so the forced normalization is the only way to protect against
it.
One solution is to simply accept is to accept the fact that
normalization is a fact of life, and celebrate it. Make it clear that
what is being captured is some rough approximation of a
percentile scale of performance across a particular group, and
don't try to hide the fact. Then, most importantly RANK AND
SCORE EACH GROUP, on and up the hierarchy. Presumably, it is
better to be roughly 60 percentile in a group that is ranked as
being 90th percentile, as compared to being 80th percentile in a
group which is ranked in the 20th percentile.
View this comment only
If raises were distributed this way as well, then fairness would
extend to both the short-term compensation (i.e., veriable pay)
as well as long-term consideration when other divisions of IBM
reviews a particular employee's work record.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (18 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Timothy Durniak
Date: 30 Jul 2003 05:18:54 GMT
Excuse me ? "Grade inflation" is bound to happen, and so the
forced normalization is the ONLY (emphasis mine) way to
protect against it.
Wrong. Forced Normalization, as you put it, is a lazy approach.
It takes effort to understand an organization's worth and value
and it takes even more effort to maintain it. Statistical analysis
(in this context) has to be used as a tool for highlighting where
you need to examine whats going on and not a replacement for
that in-depth analysis.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Afsal C. Majeed
Date: 30 Jul 2003 04:28:56 GMT
I fully agree with your points. There is another scenario which you
have missed. You give a person a rating of 1 and then tell him/her
that since he is already getting paid well, no raise for him. Do you View this comment only
think that's possible. My experience tells me that that also is
possible.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: H. Lakhaney
Date: 30 Jul 2003 05:37:45 GMT
Thanks for the honest view. I suspected that the PBCs this year
were slanted (biassed) against giving out too many 2s. As a 2
grader who has recently been given a 3 has a half year
View this comment only
assessment I feel deflated and demotivated.
Give my thanks to the "bean counter" who doesn't care about my
moral or the quality of my work or the long hours I give to IBM as
standard!
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - solution?
Reply by: Horst Gallo
Date: 30 Jul 2003 08:29:52 GMT
Theodore, these are interesting thoughts especially as it would
differentiate not only people but groups. This is an interesting
aspect especially in regards to teamwork. This also can link to
performance of a unit in IBM. However the danger could be that
when you are in a unit which is not performing you can work as View this comment only
hard as you can may not get the correct rating. I agree with
Julie further above. I think we should all agree on the meaning
of the ratings and maybe the old 5 ratings were better than the
4 what we have now. Is there another way of linking getting our
own performance in connection with IBM's overall performance?
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (19 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: N. Scarrott
Date: 30 Jul 2003 08:42:13 GMT
The notion that a high performer in a group of fellow high
performers could get a PBC 3 rating, purely because no 2's or 1's
remain in the 'kitty' and an individual in a group of lower
achievers could get a PBC 1 because they achieve slightly more
than the others in the team is wrong.
Are the number of 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's given to a manager, purely View this comment only
because it allows easier accounting when the final results are out
and bonus's are calculated?
If this is so, i'd rather receive less 'slice of the cake' and have
more people assessed accurately (no predetermined number of
x's y's or z's) than the current system which is unfair.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Antonio Fernandez De Cuevas
Date: 30 Jul 2003 10:06:30 GMT
I'm partially agree, I do believe the existence of quotas at the
lowest departmental level are not appropriate, anyway we should
understand this as a rating, the company is trying we shell to our View this comment only
employees a fair method when in the other hand is pushing to
apply differenciation .... and for sure is posible but incopatible
with what PBC process means.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - analogy to Sport
Reply by: D. J. Williams
Date: 30 Jul 2003 12:17:54 GMT
I might be the exception here but I believe the current systems
works.....& here is why. I would like to use sport as an analogy.
In any sport that has leagues you can only have so many sport
people / teams in each league. If you were in the top league last
year & perform the same/exceed this year, should you stay
there ? The answer is YES if you stay ahead of everyone else,
but if you are out performed then the answer is NO, you slip
down a league. We see this every year in the sports we watch.
View this comment only
Is it not the same basis for PBC's.....4 different leagues ? To
drive for excellence you have to create some form of
competition. You cannot have everyone at the same level....and
as with Sport some are more competitive than others &
therefore its harder to get to the top...eg Tiger Woods
Hopefully this will make for lively debate
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (20 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance - analogy to Sport
Reply by: Robert D. Moser
Date: 31 Jul 2003 04:17:24 GMT
I also disagree .... at least if you are going to continue to call
them Personal Business Commitments. Under PBCs I am asked
to attain certain goals and my rating is merely supposed to
rate my attainment of these goals. It has nothing to do with
1st team, 2nd team, etc. across a broad set of employees. I
happen to be someone that believes that the PBC system (with
View this comment only
some modification of getting back to PERSONAL, measurable
commitments) can work as it is. However, it is going to take
management to step up and validate that the commitments of
their direct reports do indeed upwardly attain his/her
department commitments. If this is done, then those that
contribute to the broader goals are rewarded and those that
don't aren't.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - analogy to Sport
Reply by: Paul C. Lasewicz
Date: 30 Jul 2003 01:51:09 GMT
From a big picture perspective, I agree. Think back to the
issues IBM faced in the early 1990s - entitlement, productivity,
insular thinking, etc.. The challenge was how to create an HR
infrastructure that would a) eliminate these issues, and b)
prevent them from arising again. PBCs are a part of that
solution - the appropriate issuance of 3s serves to undermine a
sense of entitlement and stimulate productivity. Admittedly
sometimes the 3s can be unfairly assigned. But even then it
works towards towards eliminating insularity by creating
View this comment only
enough institutional dissatisfaction to prompt employees to
leave the company, thereby ensuring a degree of turnover that
will hopefully lead to a continued influx of fresh ideas and
perspectives.
These things tend to by cyclic, and perhaps someday when the
business environment evolves the values that characterized
IBM relationship with employees prior to the 1990s will return
to vogue.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - analogy to Sport
Reply by: J. D. Powell
Date: 30 Jul 2003 01:28:59 GMT
I disagree with your analogy. PBC ratings are given to
individuals, not teams. For competition to occur (which I don't
necessarily agree is always healthy, especially when individual
people are concerned) results need to be shared. Why are
people sharing their PBC ratings? Why, as adults, are we trying View this comment only
to compete with each other in this way? I believe it's more
preferable for me to compete against myself. If I try to
compete against someone else (as a benchmark) I will only
end up (at best) being as good as them. If I complete against
myself I will continue getting better & better.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (21 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance - analogy to Sport
Reply by: D. J. Williams
Date: 30 Jul 2003 02:22:26 GMT
Agree that a PBC is personal, although it does include a team
section. Please note the original statement did say "sports
persons" in addition to teams.
Maybe a better way to compare against sport is in being part
of a "1st team". If you are out performed by others you slip
to the "2nd team" etc..
Intresting comment re competing against yourself.
Unfortunately though we are always measured against each
other, in the same way IBM is measured against its
competitors.
View this comment only
The Olympics are watched by billions, because we are
obsessed with competition & being number one. I fully
understand this is not everyone's view, but its fair to say it's
the majority ?
If as individuals we do not strive to be numer one, or at least
part of a team that is number one, how can we expect IBM to
be number 1 in the markert place ?
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - analogy to Sport
Reply by: Lori A. Blazavich
Date: 30 Jul 2003 07:09:00 GMT
I look at it a bit different. We are all on the same BIG team
(IBM). The variable pay is the individual team performance
(IGS Americas, IGS EMEA, Research, etc). The PBC rating
should be the individuals performance and reflect this
individuals pay. I do not feel that team performance or
variable pay should be tied to the PBC or individual
performance. Below is my analogy using Softball and why...
It's open for debate. I think we need to find a way to
separate the individual somehow from the team awards.
Kind of like the individual player's salary vs team award for
winning the Championship game.
EXAMPLE....
The score is tied 4 to 4 and it's the bottom of the 7th
inning. Your team is in the outfield with bases loaded and
no outs. The third base person throws the ball to first base
person. The first base person misses the ball and a run
scores. Guess what? Your TEAM just lost. It didn't lose just
because of the missed throw to first base. It may have lost
because in the previous inning your pitcher walked 5 girls
or 3 errors were made in other innings by different players
on your team? The bottom line is your TEAM lost! Not due
to one indivudual but due to the entire team.
View this comment only
Variable pay for the team should be equal to all players no
matter what individual performance is. We are all in this
together and on the same team. The performance (PBC)
ratings should be the individual performance ratings given
by the first line manager (not 2nd, 3rd, or higher). PBC
ratings should be given fairly based on individual
performance and not a bell curve or politics. There should
be no limit to the amount of 1's, 2's, 3's or 4's handed out.
The PBC or individual performance is what would be used
for individual raises and/or promotions.
If done fairly will motivate the individual to strive for a
winning team and receive a nice variable pay team award.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (22 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Bill Brugge
Date: 30 Jul 2003 03:13:54 GMT
Adrian you make some valid points however I will point out that
while I was a manager I spoke with my HROM about this and they
realize that our current rating system is not entirely without flaws.
However, I truly believe it is our role as managers to influence
change within IBM when required and to fight for the people that
report to us. An example of this was last year when I was told to
rate my team based on HR imposed skew which I did not feel
represented the performance or the contributions of my team.
Even though the organization I worked in did not meet their
financial targets(revenue and profit) or signings targets in 2002
this was not a result of the performance of my team. Without
View this comment only
getting into the details I was able to rate my team according to
their performance and contributions and not based on an imposed
"Skew" which I did not follow(even closely). I still believe that IBM
Management Policies and Practises are best of breed and this
holds true when looking out externally. I have supported many
IBM Customers over the years and it never ceases to amaze me
the number of IBM Customers that have adopted IBM
Management Practices. Being a manager or leader comes with
great responsibility and although frustrating a times this role
allows us to be part of a team with the ability to influence change.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but it can be rewarding
as well when your efforts reflect change for the better.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Michael Keller
Date: 30 Jul 2003 03:29:42 GMT
I've read all of the comments that are attached to the original
point from Adrian Flores and there is a lot of emotion and
misunderstanding out there.
Firstly I have to thank Adrian for his honesty.
Secondly I need to inform you that I am a first line manager and
do not have a 'certain number of 1, 2, & 3's to distribute. If I
want to give somebody a 3, based on facts and feedback, then I
absolutely will and I will stick by it... even if they don't like it!!!
Thirdly Todd S. Chase describes the process/ idea/ rational
View this comment only
exceptionally well. The comment which follows on from that, by
Chris Nelson, hit's the nail on the head. The PBC process is there
to differentiate top performers from low performers (by the way
we no longer get Variable Pay ... it's included in our sales
plan ...), but should be used to help the people that are not
performing. That's where the focus is missing!!!
Fourthly we as IBM need to make sure that we clear up all of
these misconceptions.
PS:-Thank you Julie St James for moving the discussion forward
to 'solutions'.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (23 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Vaughn R. Evans
Date: 30 Jul 2003 03:53:26 GMT
I have always heard from my manager friends that they juggle
the rewards of pay, raises, awards, etc. to balance their
department. The good managers are advocates for their
employees always looking for ways to promote them either
View this comment only
personally or professionally. I find it hard to believe when
someone says there is not a quota system since I have been
told by so many managers that they have one. Maybe this was
last year's news .. still I think IBM manages labor costs via the
PBC ratings.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Michael L. Mankowski
Date: 30 Jul 2003 03:51:24 GMT
After reading all these comments and becoming a victim of
PBC "deflation" a few times with IBM, I have to support the
1/2/3 "quota" theory.
Question: how much impact can individual managers have on View this comment only
un-skewing the curve? For instance if a manager "goes to bat"
for you up the chain will they be able to influence a higher
rating vs. a manager who sits on their hands??
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance and evaluation
Reply by: Margaret A. McGuinness
Date: 30 Jul 2003 04:08:21 GMT
I agree with this comment both as a former manager and as an
employee who has recently been impacted by the increasingly
pervasive practice of "rating" performance based on factors which
have little or nothing to do with an individual's actual
performance. If this is the way we now do things in IBM, let's just
stop pretending that it isn't. The reality is that the days of
individual employee "merit pay", "pay for performance" and, most
significantly, meaningful performance review processes are gone.
The old rules no longer apply so let's just admit that and fully
adapt our HR practices to the new ones and be clear about what
they are. As it stands today, the role of the manager as a leader
and/or coach of people has been greatly diminished and the hands
of the manager are often tied when it comes to evaluating their
people. Performance no longer speaks for itself and employees no View this comment only
longer know what to expect regarding their performance ratings.
The result is that more and more IBMers are becoming
demoralized, loyalty is becoming a thing of the past and mistrust
is getting in the way of true productivity and teamwork. We have
gone from one extreme to another in IBM and neither approach
works. We need to revisit how we rate our people and
communicate honestly to them about how it is being done. If the
process matched the reality of the environment and it was openly
communicated, it would eliminate a lot of angst and save time
and money. Perhaps the answer is to just announce that we will
do away with the whole concept of individual performance
evaluations and we'll base everything on the variable pay formula,
period. At least people would know what to expect and would not
be demoralized.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (24 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Scott A. Finley
Date: 30 Jul 2003 04:12:28 GMT
I could not agree more with Adrian on this. The office I am in
went through the same thing and this past PBC I experienced the
downgrading of my rating from a 2 to a 3 - because there could
View this comment only
only be so many 2's.
It shows that they do not value your contribution, but only value
their own formulas and reports.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance and Trust
Reply by: Julie St James
Date: 30 Jul 2003 05:22:16 GMT
It seems pretty clear that how the PBC process is designed to
work -- and what employees think really happens -- are very
different scenarios. And there's also confusion around the point
of the PBC system - is it to compensate? To Motivate? Or to
separate? No wonder there's a sense of mistrust. Clearly, the
point of the current system is not to disenfranchise or
demotivate any employees, but that seems to be the
unfortunate results for some employees right now.
I've always beleived that managers were key in this process and
this thread reaffirms that. There seem to be managers that can View this comment only
navigate successfully in the current structure, and managers
that feel frustrated by it. Are there ways in which managers
could handle the proccess better -- either by managing
expectation betters upwards? And managing expectations better
downward to their employees? What do you think?
Lastly, I wonder what a completely egalitarian system would
look like. And is that what we want? Does that promote
innovation and creativiy? Has anyone worked for a company that
had a better (however you define better is up to you -- more
fair, more motivating, more employee based) system?
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance and Trust
Reply by: Jonathan S. Czernel
Date: 31 Jul 2003 03:19:01 GMT
I think that anyone who thinks they can work in the current
structure is fooling themselves. No matter what, you need to
negatively rate (or give an "average" rating) to most of your
people, even though in reality they might be performing their
jobs exceptionally well. We want an organization of winners,
View this comment only
tied to each of our personal objectives that are in turn linked to
the greater good of our department, which in turn are linked to
the greater good of the organization. The focus must be on
individual accomplishment of their goals, predetermined
between an employee and their manager.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance and Trust
Reply by: Holland K. Hazen
Date: 30 Jul 2003 07:35:42 GMT
I do know from Team Concepts that a PBC Process is
destructive to team building. I saw that first hand when our
Department tried the team concept in the 90's.
The companies at the time that were most successfull with
Team Concepts did not practice PBC type ratings.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (25 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Paul S. Faris
Date: 30 Jul 2003 05:49:03 GMT
Amen! This exact scenario happened to me last year (as I'm sure
it did many people)and was (is) extremely frustrating. Tell the
people, economic times are tough, so sorry no raises, but don't
justify giving a lower performance evaluation that's not actually
based on true performance.
POST A REPLY
View this comment only
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance - PBC Ratings and Salary Increses
Reply by: Farrell W. Reeves
Date: 30 Jul 2003 07:32:58 GMT
I am not currently a people manager but I was for almost a dozen
years in my 25 years with IBM. All of those were as a first line
manager in the field service organization. I want to make a few
comments on this discussion of PBCs, ratings and salary
increases. When we moved from the old PPC&E system to the new
PBC method, I felt it was a great step forward. We need to be
involved in setting goals that contribute to the objectives of our
department and the organizations we support.
I was never told there was a "quota" of any particular
achievement rating within my department (20-30 people) but that
there was a statistical model within the larger organization (100+
people). I didn't really care about that as long as I was allowed to
rate my people based on goals that were set for each person and
their results which in turn should support my department's goals
and my own PBCs . I always reviewed my department's ratings
with my second line manager and when I was challenged on why I
may have had more people in the "Achieved/Exceeded
Commitments" category, I was prepared to defend this with
sufficient facts to back my decisions. And I was rarely overturned.
If you and your manager agreed upon your objectives/goals when
you submitted your PBCs in the beginning of the annual process,
and you can truly document your results, it should not be difficult
to know what you should be rated. Are there flaws in the system?
Yes, but I still prefer it over the previous PPC&E method which
View this comment only
was pretty much a one way approach as seen by the manager.
Now, if your manager is telling you that you are rated as
"Achieved Some/Most" because times are tough and there is not
enough salary/VPP dollars to go around then we have a problem.
That should never be a factor in your PBC rating. As a matter of
fact, I don't think the corporation determines the actual
percentage of VPP distribution until all PBC ratings are completed
and submitted and the business unit's performance was assessed
based on it's goals.
As far as salary increases go, PBC rating is only one of several
factors in determining the amount of an increase. Skill level and
retention are also weighted as well as your current pay relative to
your band and others with similar jobs in the industry. The factors
other than the PBC rating can have a significant influence.
It is absolutely essential that a manager be unbiased and
objective in this analysis and be forthright in their discussions with
employees. We still have managers that won't address poor
performance and this only makes it worse for those who are doing
well. The damage to employee moral that poor IBM managers
create is significant. We need managers that are LEADERS not
just managers. Leaders coach, encourage, motivate, counsel and
support their people. Which in turn demonstrates the value of an
employee as a person and not just a means to a business
objective.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (26 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance - PBC Ratings and Salary
Increses
Reply by: Douglas M. Free
Date: 30 Jul 2003 10:00:48 GMT
I think Ferrell captures most of my views - but I think there is a
point or two of emphasis I'd like to make. When management
teams have scopes of 100+ people, relative contribution is a
valid factor to consider. It is possible that someone meeting all
their commitments does not perform at the same level as their
peers who are rated a '2'. I believe it is appropriate to
differentiate performance of those that earned the '2' and those
that earned the '3'. I do agree with comments that folks
consider the '3' assessment as not satisfactory - and I believe
part of that is related to the fact that we don't emphasize the
comparative part of the PBC assessment process. To make that
point, I stole some text from the PBC Web Site:
-----Achieved some/most commitments
The final results achieved met some or most of the stated
commitment objectives. In some cases, the stated commitments
were achieved; however, taking all relevant input into account
(including a comparison of the employee's final results and
behaviors against the results and behaviors of others with the
same or similar job responsibilities and band), additional results View this comment only
were required---- I think it would be proper to change the main
text assigned to the 3 rating to state "Achieved most/all
commitments and/or relative contribution was lower than peers"
Seems more like "straight talk" to me than finding the relativity
component in the details. Furthermore, achievement of "some"
doesn't sound like a "3" to me... sounds unsat. One last
comment - in the management team we need to continually
remind our peers that someone with a "3" rating (or possibly
consecutive ratings of this level) are not necessarily poor
employees. We've gotten lean in many areas over the years and
some strong contributors may earn a "3" when compared to a
larger population. I've personally seen cases where a person
was correctly assessed a "3" because of significant skill
investment during a given year - who, because of the
investment became one of the most valued folks the following
year. In fact, the base pay decision for this person was very
positive... the "3" from the prior year was almost irrelevant. It is
impossible to manage in our complex environment by looking at
just numbers.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Timothy W. Budell
Date: 30 Jul 2003 09:11:25 GMT
I *DID* resign my managmeent position because my hand was
forced to evaluate an employee based on a predetermined
distribution. It was 1995 and the one time in my career I was not View this comment only
proud to be an IBMer. In retrospect, I regret that I did not resign
before appraising my dept. to meet the required distribution. I still
see some of those people in the lunch room and the halls.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (27 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance - Managers need to be leaders
Reply by: Douglas Brown
Date: 30 Jul 2003 11:24:15 GMT
Rating people is HARD TO DO. If it was easy, then anybody could
be a manager. We as managers have the responsibility to drive
our organizations to be the best that they can be. To create a
HIGH PERFORMANCE TEAM. One tool for this is the rating system
- the PBCs. It is hard. It can require very difficult discussions. It
can cause your palms to sweat. But if you aren't committed to
building the best team for IBM, then you shouldn't be a manager.
You are IBM to your team. And you are there to get the best out
View this comment only
of your team for IBM. You are not there to be friends to your
team. With that committment to IBM will come respect and
committment from your teams. How do you think the people on
your teams feel who are legitimate "1's" when you give someone
else a "1" that doesn't deserve it? They know what is happening.
You can either inspire your team to achieve more, or you can
inspire each person individually to be as mediocre as everyone
else. I choose the be a leader, and to use the PBC system to help
me create a high performance team.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
Subject: Job Performance (walking the talk on people
values)
Reply by: Judith A. Quillard
Date: 30 Jul 2003 11:58:51 GMT
Performance evaluation (the PBC process) is not the only area
where I ve seen a gap between what HR says and what actually
happens. (And let me state that I don t think the problem is with
HR.)
My summary of the challenge to be addressed: How can IBM
implement its financial controls and practices (e.g., setting the
size of the variable pay pool, managing headcount) without
undermining the people values that the company strives to
espouse?
Here s a recent example of IBM s financial silos preventing career
advancement:
An administrative assistant who supports several BCS executives
in my office location (let s call her Jane) applied via the VM Job
Posting system for a Band 6 opening in BCS. The hiring manager
decided that Jane was the best qualified candidate but was told by
BCS HR that Jane could not be offered the job. Why? Because
View this comment only
Jane s home department is in Division 12 and BCS Finance put in
place a retroactive ban on transfers from other divisions. The
hiring manager was told that BCS was treating requests for
transfer from other IBM divisions as if they were external hires.
What message do you think this delivered to Jane and other
administrative assistants who watch closely to see if IBM does live
up to our commitment to provide virtually unlimited opportunities
for career growth within IBM? (I pulled this quote today from the
announcement on w3 about the new job posting system.) None of
the other eight applicants for the job were from BCS. And Jane
had been part of BIS until a reorganization in late 2001 put all the
administrative assistants into Division 12.
Jane s case is certainly not unique and I m not trying to start a
discussion thread of similar stories. I hope this example can be
used to further the discussion of the importance and the
challenges of walking the talk on people values.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (28 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM
Values Jam
Subject: Job Performance
Reply by: Michael S. Reiter
Date: 31 Jul 2003 12:05:46 GMT
There was a strong related thread in managers jam on the quality
of the review system. My major complaint is the number of
ratings and how they are used. We are jamming too many people
into a 2 rating, which devalues a true 2 performer and creates the
perception that a 3 is the first step out the door. I was taught that View this comment only
a typical spread was 5-10% (1), 25% (2), 60% (3), 5-10% (4). A
3 rating says you are meeting expectations, but that means
nothing. If employees perceive a forced distribution, you've
devalued your performance system.
POST A REPLY
RATE THIS COMMENT
BACK TO FORUM
ValuesJam is an open forum for IBMers to discuss the values of the corporation. Consistent with
IBM Business Conduct Guidelines, solicitation, profanity, ad hominem attacks or harassment of
any sort will be subject to editing or removal from the forum. All Values Jam content is
proprietary to IBM and for internal use only.
Copyright ©2003 IBM. All rights reserved.
http://w3.ibm.com/jam/values/forumThread.do?o=d&c...3.423bbbc.VALUESJAM%40w3prime1.sby.ibm.com%3E&b=1 (29 of 29)7/30/2003 3:38:00 PM