Related Posts
Additional Posts in Pwc Sdc
Rising Star
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That was just a preview…
Sign Up to see all discussions
Sign Up to see all discussions
- Discover what it’s like to work at companies from real professionals
- Get candid advice from people in your field in a safe space
- Chat and network with other professionals in your field
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Share
Embed this post
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Preview
Download the
Fishbowl app
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Sign up for free to view this conversation on Fishbowl
Sign up for free to continue using Fishbowl
Messaging rates may apply
Bro forget performance, here even wokeism is being applied for promotion. Got some hints that recently some girl in a team got promoted because the 'to be promoted pool' was not diverse enough so they included one or two girl there.
Unfortunately, the appraisal process is not very objective here. The tiers are comparative too, so not everyone can get a tier 1. Most people will get tier 3, some will get tier 2 and few will get tier 1. RLs and HR decide this. The more influence an RL has, the more they can push for some names.
It's a subjective process. It's not about how you have performed. It's about what your RL thinks of your performance and how well they can convince others.
RLs still have to justify the recommended tier during the CRT. If someone has bad snapshots, the RL won't be able to ask for tier 1 or 2 for them.
However, this scenario rarely happens. Most people have good snapshots, have done some firm reinvestment, proposal support, etc. Their performance is more or less very similar. That's where it becomes a bit subjective on how they are divided across tiers.
It's the most biased firm towards "favouritism" that I have ever seen.. you get cool names for it like networking, visibility etc. but in essence it's all about pushing your favourites to next level while coming up with reasons on why not to promote/give good tiers to others
I think you are right. That's why I was wondering once why one team had 2-3 ppl promoted at once while similar teams with same kind of work was not promoted at all. Now I get it the leader of the earlier team was an old member of AC and had good relations with senior management.
1 thing to add, that associate is not being compared with you. Associates are compared against other associates in the pool. SAs are compared against other SAs.
PwC has a lot of politics when it comes to hike and appraisals. Also, like most of the fishes mentioned in the comment, your RL should be shrewd to put across your case and fight for your rating
You cannot compare yourself with an associate, because the pool itself is different. Only the performance of all SA's in your practice is considered when your rating is decided, since it has to be relative and the management has to fit the curve this year.
Granted the final rating is subjective, so there can be some biases, but there are multiple discussions where the rating of each individual has to be justified, so you can be assured that your case has gone through a fair process