Handling negative performance review at work

[force majeure]

Need a few words of wisdom on this, and I can handle the harsh truth.

I had my mid-year review, and I was rated "underperform". It was a shock to me, with no prior warning.
I moved from this manager early in the year, and this is his decision. New manager told me the news, and was good cop about it.
I feel sore after it, and its down to highly complex tasks, and my 2 peers being way more experienced in the role.
Was told, its nothing personal.. yeah right.
Part of me wants to stay and tough it out, or I could walk, and still be FI.
I just dont know.

[ExitViaTheCashRamp]

Don't rely on others for your happiness, it has to come from within.

 Do you think you did a good job ? If so, great ! Who cares what you boss thinks, it should matter as much to you what he/she thinks than what I think about your performance.

 If not, do you really care about your job ? In 10 years, will any activity you did in the past 6 months matter at all ?

Ask yourself honestly: if he gave you a pat on the head, told you that you had been good doggy and gave you a biscuit -- will that really change what you think about the quality of you work ?

[rantk81]

You are FI already? Heh.
If you like your job, have an informal discussion with your boss about what more is expected of you to make your performance ratings better.  If you don’t like your job, ask your boss if they think it would be best if you resigned.  The “truth” may come out if they want you to stay working there in spite of your “poor” review.  If not, you’re FI anyway so enjoy FIRE if you wish.

Edit: It’s also possible that the manager has been given guidelines from HR that he or she is required to score a certain percentage of employees to be ”underperform “.

[Monkey Uncle]

Speaking as a former staff group manager, I can tell you that a bad performance review is usually the first step toward firing someone.  Usually it comes with a list of things you need to improve upon, which is later used as documentation to back up the eventual dismissal.  Often this punch list is a pretty tall order, and the manager is betting that you won't accomplish it.  If you think the review is incorrect, document all the ways you think it is incorrect and respectfully bring those up to your manager, but don't expect to get the review rescinded.

The good news is that you no longer work for the manager who gave you the rating.  Assuming you want to keep this job, or at least don't want to tell a prospective future employer that you got fired, you need to find out ASAP what your new manager expects from you, and then be very diligent about doing it.  Take the initiative to check your progress with your manager frequently, and adjust your performance according to his/her expectations.  Document everything, especially how you are doing exactly what he/she said you should be doing.  If this tack doesn't appease management, they are probably intent on letting you go no matter what, and you should start looking for a new job ASAP (assuming you aren't ready to FIRE).  If you make the move before they get any closer to terminating you, they might refrain from giving a bad reference to prospective employers because it is easier to let you take another job than for them to actually fire you.

Sorry if this all seems a bit harsh; I'm not trying to bum you out.  Just want to make sure you're being vigilant about what's really going on.

[ender]

If the first time you find out you are underperforming is an official review, your manager is failing you.

Frankly though if you're FI the entire point of that money is to not have to care about things like this so I'm a little confused.

[CalBal]

If the first time you find out you are underperforming is an official review, your manager is failing you.

Frankly though if you're FI the entire point of that money is to not have to care about things like this so I'm a little confused.

I would agree with Ender - a bad performance review should never come as a surprise, if it is, your manager is not communicating the things they need to be. I guess I would recommend trying to think back and recalling if you were getting any clues about this (or not). They might really think you are under performing, or they might be looking for some way to trim some fat in the budget.

But I also agree - if you are FI I wouldn't care too much.

And also, if you are under a new manager now, if you do care, work closely with them to set realistic goals and check in often. If the goals are really high (like, not achievable for your level of experience), if you work for a large enough organization, see if you can transition into a different role you might be better at. If you have access to a job description for your role/level, check to see if it is in line with what they are expecting from you.

It sucks to be told you are not doing as well as you thought you were, and I sympathize. :( I would probably also be putting out feelers for another job, if I cared to still work.

[clarkfan1979]

First of all, performance reviews often have very little to do with actual performance. This is a scientific fact demonstrated in many studies within Industrial/Organizational Psychology.

From my best guess someone doesn't like you personally and they are trying to put some documentation together to fire you. It doesn't mean that it will actually happen, but it looks like someone is trying.

I got a poor performance review from a peer committee and my immediate supervisor about two years ago. However, I think I still got "meets expectations". I was upset for about one month. I was mostly upset because the logic didn't make any sense. If I suck, I will admit it. However, my head was spinning because it didn't make any sense to me. My immediate supervisor also requested that I re-submit it as a "do over"

However, my top supervisor gave me an excellent performance review. He even explained why the poor performance reviews from the others didn't have any credit to them. He even said something along the lines of it being the best performance review for a "first review" employee.

If you like it there, make the changes and stay. If you don't like it there, leave. Someone else will appreciate your talents more. I think it's very important to feel appreciated at work. I like to be at an easier job and consistently exceeding expectations. I think it would be worse to be at a very high expectations job and consistently falling short, even though your individual output might technically be higher.

[MaaS]

You are FI already? Heh.
If you like your job, have an informal discussion with your boss about what more is expected of you to make your performance ratings better.  If you don’t like your job, ask your boss if they think it would be best if you resigned.  The “truth” may come out if they want you to stay working there in spite of your “poor” review.  If not, you’re FI anyway so enjoy FIRE if you wish.

Edit: It’s also possible that the manager has been given guidelines from HR that he or she is required to score a certain percentage of employees to be ”underperform “.

Yep, I've worked in company's where managers were required to do this.

From the manager's POV, it's easiest to give the poor rating to the person who left their department. Fair? No. Easier? For sure.

[Padonak]

Speaking as a former staff group manager, I can tell you that a bad performance review is usually the first step toward firing someone.  Usually it comes with a list of things you need to improve upon, which is later used as documentation to back up the eventual dismissal.  Often this punch list is a pretty tall order, and the manager is betting that you won't accomplish it.  If you think the review is incorrect, document all the ways you think it is incorrect and respectfully bring those up to your manager, but don't expect to get the review rescinded.

The good news is that you no longer work for the manager who gave you the rating.  Assuming you want to keep this job, or at least don't want to tell a prospective future employer that you got fired, you need to find out ASAP what your new manager expects from you, and then be very diligent about doing it.  Take the initiative to check your progress with your manager frequently, and adjust your performance according to his/her expectations.  Document everything, especially how you are doing exactly what he/she said you should be doing.  If this tack doesn't appease management, they are probably intent on letting you go no matter what, and you should start looking for a new job ASAP (assuming you aren't ready to FIRE).  If you make the move before they get any closer to terminating you, they might refrain from giving a bad reference to prospective employers because it is easier to let you take another job than for them to actually fire you.

Sorry if this all seems a bit harsh; I'm not trying to bum you out.  Just want to make sure you're being vigilant about what's really going on.

What bad reference? If i find out that a former employer gave me a bad reference, I'll sue them.

All the megacorps I have worked for only give start and end dates and position if they get reference requests.

[Blindsquirrel]

  Grab your red Swingline stabler and torch the place. JK, "Office space" reference.:)

[swampwiz]

Update your resume and be on the lookout for a place to land.  Being a Moustacher, you should already have a low spend-rate.

[GuitarStv]

A bad performance review generally means that you are finished at the company.  Actually, I've never seen a bad review turn into a good one ever.  Time to find a new job

[Much Fishing to Do]

It really doesn't sound like you are doing what you "feel like doing on any given day"

[StetsTerhune]

I think the review is too company specific for any of us to have much sense of what it actually means for your future at the company. The fact that came from a manager you know no longer report to is certainly mitigating, but you're the only one who was in the room with your current manager.

Are you actually worried about your future there, or is this just an ego hit? Do you care about your future at the company, or are you just biding a couple more years before you retire? Is this the sort of company that fires people all the time, or does it let people coast unless they're spectacularly incompetent?

[swampwiz]

Are you actually worried about your future there, or is this just an ego hit? Do you care about your future at the company, or are you just biding a couple more years before you retire? Is this the sort of company that fires people all the time, or does it let people coast unless they're spectacularly incompetent?

In today's nasty & brutish employee market, a bad review means toward the bottom of the totem pole, so when there is the inevitable layoff during any downturn (and there always is, since the work is always getting more & more efficient), or when the psycho CEO wants to go into "Neutron" or "Chainsaw" mode, a combination of being low on the totem pole and "seasoned" means YOU'RE FIRED.

[sol]

I've never had a bad review, but I've had a bunch that I thought were blatantly unfair.

Different managers have different expectations.  Sometimes those expectations are not communicated to you ahead of time, and you can totally satisfy one manager and totally disappoint another one in the same department, with the same work.  Much depends on what they think you should be doing, not what you actually are doing.  If you're a superstar at tasks A and B but lagging at task C, you can expect to get reprimanded for task C even if tasks A and B totally saved the company that year and paid for all of your manager's salary.

I previously tried to deal with this situation by going to my manager and getting a written list of required achievements in order to get the highest possible rating, because I felt many of the factors I was evaluated on were very subjective.  I asked for hard numbers.  How many times do I have to accomplish a specific thing?  How much money do I have to save the organization?  How many people do I have to supervise or direct?  Exactly how many months ahead of schedule do I need to be?  What specific product did I need to deliver by what deadline?  In cases where a detail-oriented manager was able to provide that level of specificity, I always got top marks.  In cases where a manager refused to provide specifics and told me it was more of a holistic evaluation, I was always found lacking in something that warranted a downgrade.

This frustrating experience is a big part of what motivated my path to early retirement.  I've always been a bit of a ladder climber, ticking off the boxes for various successes in life, and my job finally stopped providing me any new ladders to climb.  I craved the approval of people I thought were more successful than me, but eventually I realized that within the confines of this job there were no remaining possible professional achievements that would ever be good enough to warrant moving on to something better.  Except for the biggest professional accomplishment of all, that is, making and saving so much money that I could choose to work or not to work.

And as soon as I hit that one, and I no longer needed to work for money, I quickly realized that work was unsatisfying without anything else to strive towards.  I liked the job well enough, but it wasn't leading me anywhere.  I wasn't being encouraged to learn anything new, and every time I branched out into something new and worthy I was quickly scolded for painting outside the lines, and reminded of my specific job rubric and my upcoming progress review.  It didn't matter that I was outperforming my supervisor at their job, I was failing at parts of my own job and was therefore a problem employee.

It also didn't help that I was never shy about expressing these frustrations to my bosses.  I thought I was clearly communicating my desire to excel, they thought I was whining and complaining about how unfair the system was.

So my advice is to not whine about it, but to go ask for specifics if you want to stay in this job.  Find out what exact measures they were unhappy with, and then ask for details on what you need to accomplish in what timeframe and budget in order to meet that criteria.  Make sure these expectations align with the performance of your coworkers who were rated the way you want to be rated.  Then cooperate with your manager on laying out a plan to accomplish those things, being proactive about your desire to excel.

And lastly, you may just have to accept that the reviews may not be fair.  Some workplaces play favorites by gender, by age, by family status, by who can drink the most whiskey or plays the best round of golf, or by who's sleeping with the boss's neice.  In those situations, you're not really being evaluated on your job performance so as much as your ability to "fit in with the corporate culture" and success means learning to play the game they're playing, instead of the one you've been playing.

[sparkytheop]

I was the top performer in my group.  When I left one location for another for the next step of my apprenticeship, my old manager sent a big FU by rating me the lowest he could.  Fortunately, my new managers saw it for what it was, and I was back up to top ratings the next round.

It could be a path for documentation to make for easier dismissal, or it could be someone just holding a grudge for you leaving.  Talk with your new manager if you're concerned and see if you can get a read on it.  If they are happy with your performance, I'd leave it alone.

[Monkey Uncle]

Speaking as a former staff group manager, I can tell you that a bad performance review is usually the first step toward firing someone.  Usually it comes with a list of things you need to improve upon, which is later used as documentation to back up the eventual dismissal.  Often this punch list is a pretty tall order, and the manager is betting that you won't accomplish it.  If you think the review is incorrect, document all the ways you think it is incorrect and respectfully bring those up to your manager, but don't expect to get the review rescinded.

The good news is that you no longer work for the manager who gave you the rating.  Assuming you want to keep this job, or at least don't want to tell a prospective future employer that you got fired, you need to find out ASAP what your new manager expects from you, and then be very diligent about doing it.  Take the initiative to check your progress with your manager frequently, and adjust your performance according to his/her expectations.  Document everything, especially how you are doing exactly what he/she said you should be doing.  If this tack doesn't appease management, they are probably intent on letting you go no matter what, and you should start looking for a new job ASAP (assuming you aren't ready to FIRE).  If you make the move before they get any closer to terminating you, they might refrain from giving a bad reference to prospective employers because it is easier to let you take another job than for them to actually fire you.

Sorry if this all seems a bit harsh; I'm not trying to bum you out.  Just want to make sure you're being vigilant about what's really going on.

What bad reference? If i find out that a former employer gave me a bad reference, I'll sue them.

All the megacorps I have worked for only give start and end dates and position if they get reference requests.

You can sue if you want, but you're probably going to lose.  That said, it is true that many employers are paranoid about getting sued for giving a bad reference, unjustifiably so, in my opinion, but the fact remains.  Which is why I suggested that the OP give them the easy way out by looking for another job before they move further toward termination.  If they really want him to go, odds are they will not say anything to interfere with him getting another job.

[albireo13]

Do not take it personally.   There is usually an agenda against you.

I had an experience where I was doing well then, my wife battled cancer and died and I was a single Dad with 3 kids to worry about.
I struggled quite a bit after her passing and my manager dinged me with substandard reviews for 2 years because I "wasn't engaged enough"
and was under performing.  I probably was, by their standards, but I had more important things to worry about.  I struggled with depression and such.

  My kids and I did ok, despite my work manager.  In the end we are ok, although my career was inhibited.
As for my supervisor? ....   he cheated on his wife and kids and was eventually let go.     A real piece of work he was!

[Monkey Uncle]

I previously tried to deal with this situation by going to my manager and getting a written list of required achievements in order to get the highest possible rating, because I felt many of the factors I was evaluated on were very subjective.  I asked for hard numbers.  How many times do I have to accomplish a specific thing?  How much money do I have to save the organization?  How many people do I have to supervise or direct?  Exactly how many months ahead of schedule do I need to be?  What specific product did I need to deliver by what deadline?  In cases where a detail-oriented manager was able to provide that level of specificity, I always got top marks.  In cases where a manager refused to provide specifics and told me it was more of a holistic evaluation, I was always found lacking in something that warranted a downgrade.

Sol, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your managers considered you to be a royal pain in the ass. ;)  When you're a well-educated professional working in a complex, high-level position, it is pretty much impossible for your boss to give you a specific list of boxes you have to tick to get an outstanding performance rating.  You're not there to make a certain number of widgets within certain quality specifications, you're there to anticipate problems and devise ways to solve them before they land on your boss's plate.  I had a few employees who thought I should lay out exactly what they had to do to get a top rating, and their performance reviews were always frustrating experiences, both for them and for me.  But even though I knew the reviews were going to leave both of us upset, I never gave in to the demands to develop a highly specific punch list.  All that would do is set up a situation where the employee is going to focus just on ticking those boxes, and then he/she will demand an outstanding rating, regardless of anything else that he/she did or did not do, and regardless of his/her actual impact on the performance of the organization.  There is no way a manager can think of everything that a high-level employee needs to do throughout the course of a rating period and then encapsulate all of those things in a complete, detailed list.  Also, things change throughout the course of the rating period, and a supervisor can't afford to spend all of his/her time updating such lists for every employee every time a curve ball appears. 

I supervised between 10 and 17 people at any given time.  Even though I consider myself to be a detail-oriented person, there was no way I could have focused on such details for everyone.  Instead, I was looking for people who could think on the fly, adjust to shifting demands, produce tangible accomplishments for the organization, and make it look good in the process.  I know that kind of mushy, "I'll know good performance when I see it" type of management is frustrating for many employees; it was frustrating for me, too, when I was in the rank and file.  But it's really the only thing that works in a fast-paced professional environment.

[sol]

Sol, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your managers considered you to be a royal pain in the ass.

Well that part is probably true either way.  The feeling was mutual.

it is pretty much impossible for your boss to give you a specific list of boxes you have to tick to get an outstanding performance rating.  You're not there to make a certain number of widgets within certain quality specifications, you're there to anticipate problems and devise ways to solve them before they land on your boss's plate.

My performance rubric was already set by federal law, and I was only evaluated on three different criteria.  I wasn't asking for a detailed list to recognize all of the myriad of things I did in my job, I was asking for clarification on how those three broad categories were going to be judged.

For example, one of them was something like "scientific communication" and was supposed to encapsulate the number and quality of my interactions with the public throughout the year.  The top rating required six.  I submitted a list of twelve, and was told nine of them didn't count.  Okay, why not?  What sorts of publications or in-person events count and what sorts don't?  As long as I know ahead of time that you want me to write six reports of a particular type, I can make a plan to do that.  But without any guidance, how am I supposed to know if I'm a superstar employee, or barely scraping by?  I need a cookie!
 

All that would do is set up a situation where the employee is going to focus just on ticking those boxes,

Isn't that the whole point of having a written performance rubric?  So you can ensure your employees tick the right boxes, and you have some uniform standard by which you can compare productivity?  Otherwise subjective evaluations tend to penalize employees who just don't "feel right" to a particular manager, maybe because they are female, or younger, or don't drink with the boss.  Performance evals should be about performance, and that performance should be measurable.  If you can't measure it, then you're just playing favorites.

[DaMa]

I worked at companies where managers got a certain % for raises, and the only way you could give one person more than that % was to give someone else less.  It was well known that if you transferred to another area mid year, your 1st boss would low ball you so he'd have more to give to people still on his team.

If the boss you have now is happy with you (and you are happy with him), I wouldn't worry about this review at all.

[Hargrove]

Isn't that the whole point of having a written performance rubric?  So you can ensure your employees tick the right boxes, and you have some uniform standard by which you can compare productivity?  Otherwise subjective evaluations tend to penalize employees who just don't "feel right" to a particular manager, maybe because they are female, or younger, or don't drink with the boss.  Performance evals should be about performance, and that performance should be measurable.  If you can't measure it, then you're just playing favorites.

I don't think the point was that it can't be measured. The point was that it can't be anticipated.

So, it can't always be measured in advance, which is how you would get your list.

[SwordGuy]

If you deserved the poor performance review, then think about whether you are interested in fixing the problem.  If it's a problem that will impact the rest of your life, it's best to fix it.

If you were surprised at a bad review, think back and figure out whether you were missing the hints or whether your manager blindsided you.   If you think you might have missed some hints, learn to pick up on social cues better. 

And if you are truly FI, ask yourself whether you really give a damn about some piss-ant company and management you happen to work for.   If not, F* them.   Quit or keep working, as it pleases you.

FI makes these kind of situations really simple.

[nick663]

Need a few words of wisdom on this, and I can handle the harsh truth.

I had my mid-year review, and I was rated "underperform". It was a shock to me, with no prior warning.
I moved from this manager early in the year, and this is his decision. New manager told me the news, and was good cop about it.
I feel sore after it, and its down to highly complex tasks, and my 2 peers being way more experienced in the role.
Was told, its nothing personal.. yeah right.
Part of me wants to stay and tough it out, or I could walk, and still be FI.
I just dont know.

-Is it the first time you have received a negative review?  If an isolated occurrence I would take it as feedback and see what I could do to either improve my work or the perception of my work.
-Does the new manager agree with the former manager?  The other manager is gone so his opinion doesn't matter much.
-You mention 2 peers being more experienced in the role... how experienced are you?  And what is the gap?  I generally expect a 6 month employee to be functional and a 2 year employee to be proficient.  Beyond that, the difference between a 2 year and a 20 year employee is generally just experience/tribal knowledge of weird circumstances and how to get around them.

Edit: It’s also possible that the manager has been given guidelines from HR that he or she is required to score a certain percentage of employees to be ”underperform “.

I've never heard of a company putting a rule like that in place and I think it'd be incredibly stupid if a company did.

[markbike528CBX]

Edit: It’s also possible that the manager has been given guidelines from HR that he or she is required to score a certain percentage of employees to be ”underperform “.

I've never heard of a company putting a rule like that in place and I think it'd be incredibly stupid if a company did.

There are apparently lots of stupid companies out there, this is an old "if you're in the bottom 10%" you are gone.
I think it is most recently a Jack Welsh of GE thingy, but my (sort of similar ) company did it too.

When we had a huge layoff (2/3ds), the few of us remaining asked if the mandatory low score could be eliminated.
It was, and we got retention bonuses for staying a few years.
 

[Monkey Uncle]

All that would do is set up a situation where the employee is going to focus just on ticking those boxes,

Isn't that the whole point of having a written performance rubric?  So you can ensure your employees tick the right boxes, and you have some uniform standard by which you can compare productivity?  Otherwise subjective evaluations tend to penalize employees who just don't "feel right" to a particular manager, maybe because they are female, or younger, or don't drink with the boss.  Performance evals should be about performance, and that performance should be measurable.  If you can't measure it, then you're just playing favorites.

Yes, and that's why I hated written performance rubrics.  I avoided creating them, although there was a certain amount of that stuff baked into the performance plan template that our agency required us to use.  Our HR people always pushed the "SMART" acronym for setting up performance standards - Specific, Measurable, (I forget what the A and R stand for), and Time bound.  I politely ignored their guidance because none of them knew a damn thing about what our professionals and scientists actually did in their jobs.  Apparently the HR people thought everyone worked on an assembly line. 

I advocated for going to a pass/fail system that just used an employee's position description as their performance plan.  If you aren't living up to one of the duties in the PD, you get failed on that item; fail on enough items or specific critical items and you fail the whole review.  Otherwise, you pass.  No such thing as a superior or outstanding rating.  If you do something spectacular, then your boss can give you a cash award on the spot for that particular spectacular thing. This sort of system would eliminate supervisors playing favorites.  No one gets rated any higher than anyone else, but people still get rewarded when they do something great.  But of course no one listened to me.

For a performance system to really work, the boss has to have some room for subjective discretion in determining whether an employee is performing well or not.  Of course this puts a lot of responsibility on the boss to articulate a clear vision of the organization's goals, objectives, and priorities so employees will know what they are supposed to focus on.  If the boss handles that task well, then employees can have the discretion to use their ingenuity and talents to pursue those goals, objectives, and priorities instead of having a punch list of tasks to complete.  Which leads to a much more productive organization.

To the OP - I'm sorry for derailing your thread!

[nick663]

Edit: It’s also possible that the manager has been given guidelines from HR that he or she is required to score a certain percentage of employees to be ”underperform “.

I've never heard of a company putting a rule like that in place and I think it'd be incredibly stupid if a company did.

There are apparently lots of stupid companies out there, this is an old "if you're in the bottom 10%" you are gone.
I think it is most recently a Jack Welsh of GE thingy, but my (sort of similar ) company did it too.

When we had a huge layoff (2/3ds), the few of us remaining asked if the mandatory low score could be eliminated.
It was, and we got retention bonuses for staying a few years.

Yeah, I just find the idea of a quota at the manager level a bad idea because it's entirely possible that an entire team is kicking ass and there are no weak points.  Giving a negative review could turn an average employee into an ex-employee and then you go through the headaches of recruiting/hiring/etc.  Company wide it's something HR should tracking of course as you expect a bell curve but a percentage mandate at the manager level seems like it would have issues.

I should mention it really depends on the structure of the company as "manager" can have different meanings.  I'm picturing the one I've seen most in my career with 8-15 direct reports and no one below that on the reporting chain.  My current organization has close to 200 people under the manager so a quota might be a little more fair.

[markbike528CBX]

Edit: It’s also possible that the manager has been given guidelines from HR that he or she is required to score a certain percentage of employees to be ”underperform “.

I've never heard of a company putting a rule like that in place and I think it'd be incredibly stupid if a company did.

There are apparently lots of stupid companies out there, this is an old "if you're in the bottom 10%" you are gone.
I think it is most recently a Jack Welsh of GE thingy, but my (sort of similar ) company did it too.

When we had a huge layoff (2/3ds), the few of us remaining asked if the mandatory low score could be eliminated.
It was, and we got retention bonuses for staying a few years.

Yeah, I just find the idea of a quota at the manager level a bad idea because it's entirely possible that an entire team is kicking ass and there are no weak points.  Giving a negative review could turn an average employee into an ex-employee and then you go through the headaches of recruiting/hiring/etc.  Company wide it's something HR should tracking of course as you expect a bell curve but a percentage mandate at the manager level seems like it would have issues.

I should mention it really depends on the structure of the company as "manager" can have different meanings.  I'm picturing the one I've seen most in my career with 8-15 direct reports and no one below that on the reporting chain.  My current organization has close to 200 people under the manager so a quota might be a little more fair.

The "system" was explained to us, and nobody took the formal review process very seriously. The review only changed your raise +- 1%.   When the layoffs came most of the people affected were focused on a dying/dead product line.   Maybe 3 of the 30 layoffs (45 start headcount) were because a series of subpar reviews.  I don't know, I wasn't the manager, just my best guess.   We didn't have more than 3 subpar performers, and they would be good hires elsewhere.

[Bucksandreds]

You’re FI. Whether you say anything or not just think in your head that they can suck your d!ck. Work in a modern society is bullshit meant to control you. I do it for the money. I constantly think and tell others this.  The bosses can suck my d!ck. They don’t give a sh!t about you. You shouldn’t about them.

[Strubbelkopf]

I've only ever been an individual contributor, but technical.

I got shocked by a negative performance review...and then got a performance bonus the next year, without doing anything differently, as far as I can tell.

Just one person's experience.

[effigy98]

Speaking as a former staff group manager, I can tell you that a bad performance review is usually the first step toward firing someone.  Usually it comes with a list of things you need to improve upon, which is later used as documentation to back up the eventual dismissal.  Often this punch list is a pretty tall order, and the manager is betting that you won't accomplish it.  If you think the review is incorrect, document all the ways you think it is incorrect and respectfully bring those up to your manager, but don't expect to get the review rescinded.

The good news is that you no longer work for the manager who gave you the rating.  Assuming you want to keep this job, or at least don't want to tell a prospective future employer that you got fired, you need to find out ASAP what your new manager expects from you, and then be very diligent about doing it.  Take the initiative to check your progress with your manager frequently, and adjust your performance according to his/her expectations.  Document everything, especially how you are doing exactly what he/she said you should be doing.  If this tack doesn't appease management, they are probably intent on letting you go no matter what, and you should start looking for a new job ASAP (assuming you aren't ready to FIRE).  If you make the move before they get any closer to terminating you, they might refrain from giving a bad reference to prospective employers because it is easier to let you take another job than for them to actually fire you.

Sorry if this all seems a bit harsh; I'm not trying to bum you out.  Just want to make sure you're being vigilant about what's really going on.

What bad reference? If i find out that a former employer gave me a bad reference, I'll sue them.

All the megacorps I have worked for only give start and end dates and position if they get reference requests.

Yes I work for a mega corp and all we can say is what dates they worked for us because everyone is afraid of lawsuits and bad press. I would prefer to get layed off however, since you can collect unemployment.

[Monkey Uncle]

Speaking as a former staff group manager, I can tell you that a bad performance review is usually the first step toward firing someone.  Usually it comes with a list of things you need to improve upon, which is later used as documentation to back up the eventual dismissal.  Often this punch list is a pretty tall order, and the manager is betting that you won't accomplish it.  If you think the review is incorrect, document all the ways you think it is incorrect and respectfully bring those up to your manager, but don't expect to get the review rescinded.

The good news is that you no longer work for the manager who gave you the rating.  Assuming you want to keep this job, or at least don't want to tell a prospective future employer that you got fired, you need to find out ASAP what your new manager expects from you, and then be very diligent about doing it.  Take the initiative to check your progress with your manager frequently, and adjust your performance according to his/her expectations.  Document everything, especially how you are doing exactly what he/she said you should be doing.  If this tack doesn't appease management, they are probably intent on letting you go no matter what, and you should start looking for a new job ASAP (assuming you aren't ready to FIRE).  If you make the move before they get any closer to terminating you, they might refrain from giving a bad reference to prospective employers because it is easier to let you take another job than for them to actually fire you.

Sorry if this all seems a bit harsh; I'm not trying to bum you out.  Just want to make sure you're being vigilant about what's really going on.

What bad reference? If i find out that a former employer gave me a bad reference, I'll sue them.

All the megacorps I have worked for only give start and end dates and position if they get reference requests.

Yes I work for a mega corp and all we can say is what dates they worked for us because everyone is afraid of lawsuits and bad press. I would prefer to get layed off however, since you can collect unemployment.

I guess because mega corp has nothing to gain from giving a reference on a former employee, they won't even take the slightest chance of getting sued.  But really, unless the reference is demonstrably false, a former employee is not going to win a lawsuit over a bad reference.

https://employment.findlaw.com/hiring-process/is-a-former-employer-s-bad-reference-illegal-.html

However, if a job seeker discovers that a negative reference was provided, the next question is whether the information was either true, false, or just an opinion. Truthful information provided by an employer will be protected by the law in the vast majority of cases. Opinions also are generally protected, and simply because someone disagrees with their former employer's opinion does not entitle them to collect damages under defamation law. Instead, only false factual statements are subject to defamation lawsuits that are governed by individual states' laws.

[DaMa]

Edit: It’s also possible that the manager has been given guidelines from HR that he or she is required to score a certain percentage of employees to be ”underperform “.

I've never heard of a company putting a rule like that in place and I think it'd be incredibly stupid if a company did.

There are apparently lots of stupid companies out there, this is an old "if you're in the bottom 10%" you are gone.
I think it is most recently a Jack Welsh of GE thingy, but my (sort of similar ) company did it too.

When we had a huge layoff (2/3ds), the few of us remaining asked if the mandatory low score could be eliminated.
It was, and we got retention bonuses for staying a few years.

Yeah, I just find the idea of a quota at the manager level a bad idea because it's entirely possible that an entire team is kicking ass and there are no weak points.  Giving a negative review could turn an average employee into an ex-employee and then you go through the headaches of recruiting/hiring/etc.  Company wide it's something HR should tracking of course as you expect a bell curve but a percentage mandate at the manager level seems like it would have issues.

I should mention it really depends on the structure of the company as "manager" can have different meanings.  I'm picturing the one I've seen most in my career with 8-15 direct reports and no one below that on the reporting chain.  My current organization has close to 200 people under the manager so a quota might be a little more fair.

I worked at a big company, 8000+ employees.  This absolutely did happen.  I specifically had to fight to give one person extra without giving someone else less.  I had a team of 4.  My argument was basically if I'm highly effective then my team must be highly effective.  We were supposed to make the average at manager level.  You had to really fight (and substantiate) to go over the average.  If the director approved it, she then had to make the average at her level (she had about 100 people under her), or battle with her boss.  And so on. 

Teams under a manager could vary from 1-200+.  A lot of managers would just give everyone the same %, because they didn't want the hassle.  HR was always trying to make the bell curve, but if you rated someone's performance low, you had to put them on an action plan and document, document, document.  So very very few people were ever rated low. 

It was terrible.  High performers weren't going to get more (or very little more) than slackers, so eventually they left for substantial raises or stopped being high performers.  Slackers never get penalized.  It's a race to the bottom.

[use2betrix]

I don’t really understand how you haven’t received any feedback throughout the year that might hint at that? Or - even though it does all seem to come as a surprise, do the items they bring up at least seem justified?

I’m always asking for feedback or input on how I’m doing. In a sense, I “love” negative feedback even, as it does show me what I can do to improve. It’s hard to always recognize ones own faults. What I hate is no feedback, even when I ask. 

If you’re FI and this bothers you, why stress or even care? If you can do anything with your life right now, why do something that makes you feel anything other than great? It doesn’t seem like you’re taking the criticism well and it’s something you strive for so you can work on.

Reminds me of Facebook - I am constantly unfollowing friends and family if they every post anything that sparks something negative in me. It adds zero value and only brings me down. Seems your job is doing the same?

[sol]

It's a race to the bottom.

For some of us, it becomes a race to FIRE.

[Bateaux]

FU-Money

[AccidentialMustache]

The bell curve performance review thing was part of what made me walk from a previous company, and the worst I'd gotten was a mix of meets/exceeds. But when I asked what I needed to do to do better I got told "You're doing fine, we're just playing the game. Need the greatly exceeds for promotions this year."

When a startup called and said, "hey do you want to write <favorite language> in <your home down> for <important user-facing product>?" I replied with a "yeah let's talk." Been there since and so far am loving it (2+ years).

IMO, but: if you're in a FI position you should kick at the review at work. There are folks who suffer because for whatever reason they are not FI and can't afford to make a stink about a bad manager or bad employment practices. Either upper management can fix the broken manager, or they'll decide you're too much of a pain to be worth it and fire/frustrate you into leaving. You're okay in either case but maybe you help some new hire just getting their feet under them. Or maybe the company is terminally stupid, in which case you figure that out and can start looking with a clear conscience (you tried to fix it).

[Slee_stack]

I've received (2) underperforming reviews, one each at different companies.

Both were the result of poor management.

The first company, I recorded everything I ever did and when my psycho manager tried to eventually fire me, I dropped a stack of evidence in front of HR.  He ended up being fired not long later.  He was just a useless political jackass.

My second underperforming review, I challenged my boss about zero feedback prior, and absolutely having no direction and nothing laid out ahead of time.  At first he was defensive, but over the next year he admitted that he messed up and gave me a resounding positive review the next time.

Moving forward, I'm kind of hoping for a negative review because I'd like to possibly get a severance package.  I'm likely not here for all that much longer anyway. 

[BicycleB]

It's a midyear review. What is the significance of that in your company?

For example, is this the time when you're notified, but it doesn't "count" unless you're rated underperform during the annual review? If so:

-You're FIRE-ish, wait until they're actually ready to fire you. Free paycheck until then, if you want it.
-Ask your current boss whether he/she is likely to give you "meets expections" at annual review. If in doubt, ask for 3-month checkup if you like.
-You may have 6 months to find another job if you want, not 6 weeks.

[mak1277]

The amount of blame passing in this thread is mind boggling.  I guess MMM forums are like Lake Woebegone...everyone is above average.

OP - Look at your performance honestly and own it.  Don't automatically assume you're being punished, or that your boss is bad. 

[MrTinystache]

I would have a conversation with your current boss about having to find a new job due to the bad performance review and see where it goes from there. 

[mak1277]

Isn't that the whole point of having a written performance rubric?  So you can ensure your employees tick the right boxes, and you have some uniform standard by which you can compare productivity?

If you 'only' tick off the boxes that are part of your job description, that is merely meeting expectations.  In order to exceed expectations and get top marks on review you have to do things above and beyond, which often can't be anticipated.

[force majeure]

Folks, I appreciate all the feedback.
I have done some thinking, and the answer is.... look for another job.
The reason for all this FIRE madness, is to insulate against shocks such as this. Why else would I put myself thru voluntary sacrifices?
I put the emotions aside, and will focus on finding a new position - reckon I only need another year of padding the nest egg.

Emotions? Reminds me of a quote I read by James Hetfield (metallica) ...I thought about it for a while, counted to ten, then I exploded

[Miss Prim]

I feel sore after it, and its down to highly complex tasks, and my 2 peers being way more experienced in the role.
Was told, its nothing personal.. yeah right.
Part of me wants to stay and tough it out, or I could walk, and still be FI.
I just dont know.

This quote right here tells me that it really wasn't personal because you said your 2 peers had more experience.  I was a clinical laboratory scientist and my last 8 years of working, I switched to a department (microbiology) that I hadn't worked in for 25 years.  I did it because it was always my favorite part of the lab and due to circumstances, I hadn't ever been able to work there before.  I was bored with the rest of the lab and wanted a challenge and boy was it a challenge!  I had to learn and relearn stuff I hadn't done in 25 years!  Of course, my 1st review mirrored this period of adjustment.  Even though I had always had rave reviews in other areas, I expected this as I was still learning the ropes so to speak.  But, I really wanted to work there so I didn't let it bother me. 

Do you think you have a better chance of getting a good review in the department you transfered to?  If so, and you like the work, I would stick it out.

                                                                             Miss Prim