Ouch. If true this is just dirty. Can anyone from pwc confirm?
Going Concern: Layoff Watch ’20: PwCer Claims Performance Ratings Are Purposely Being Bumped Down to Make Separation Decisions Easier During the Pandemic.
https://goingconcern.com/layoff-watch-20-pwcer-claims-performance-ratings-purposely-bumped-down-separations-pandemic/
This happens at most large consulting firms
I personally saw it at Deloitte and EY
I can only speak for the CRT I was in. HR’s distribution targets of tier 1 (highest performers) through tier 4 and 5 () were consistent with prior years. It was a democratic process with RLs (all Directors, not Partners) presenting each case, comparing and contrasting across the board.
We’ve ended up with one tier 5 out of ~ 200 or so whilst we’re able to get away with fewer than needed tier 4s and more promos than allotted slots.
Our leadership has been and continues to be as transparent as one would expect. Apparently, the overall layoffs in 2008 hurt more as we had to rehire to regain lost ground during recovery.
Furthermore they have also been forthcoming in re-evaluating the situation further down the line depending on how the economic rollercoaster panes out this time.
Imho The real problem here is you have just read an Internet Article based on a testimony of one individual for whom we have no insight into the circumstances of their termination.
What specifically bothered you P3?
- I was clear this is my experience
- I didn’t write an ode to our leadership and explained their “selfish reasons” taking this specific course of action
- T4 and T5 targets share their pool; we kept most poor performers in T4 and were able to avoid fully filling it; it was one CRT, one specific practice...I agree it is not something to draw firm-wise conclusions on (just like the article)
- if I noticed a systematic issue in our process I damn well wouldn’t be defending it here.
Everything I’ve seen shows we have kept the same percentages of 4s and 5s (or just 5s if S&) as prior years. This is coming from directors in several different CRTs corroborating.
All. Performance based separation is NOT a lay off.
Chief
I don’t see that as necessarily being a dirty practice. Most firms have problems with “grade inflation”. If they know going into the review process that they are likely to be doing layoffs soon, it makes sense to be extra careful about differentiating performance so that the low performers are let go first.
You can certainly argue that they should be just as careful in good years, but it’s just reality that when the stakes are lower, firms tend to be easier graders in performance reviews.
yeah this isn’t true. performance rating distribution is the same as previous years
ACN has had similar alarm bells. Reviews were moved up and condensed to 3 weeks. Little notice to prepare. I expect performance cuts to come sooner as a result.
Papa Whiskey Charlie 😂🤣
Not as laughable as People Who Care !
As far as I’m concerned, they are all shady.
True comment. Also advisory being very aggressive in pushing 4-5 ratings.