How secure are corporate jobs - really

[Spanky]

Employee ranking (or performance appraisal), in general, is based on subjective criteria. As others have mentioned, those who are FOB will always receive high ranking regardless of their competency. Those who do not spend time in developing good relationship with their bosses will always be let go first.

 

[TickTock]

TickTock summary:

* Forced ranking within a group is bad because it incentivizes you to hurt your peers instead of contributing to the group, and also incentivizes you to surround yourself with bad performers.

* Competence is helpful, but not necessarily sufficient, to get and keep a job. Although it does help you find another job if the first one goes south.

 

[armor99]

What are your experiences in large corporations?

1. Huge red tape problem. To get anything done usually requires 5 managers to sign it. And most managers want to remain as "invisible" as possible.

2. Pay is usually better, as are benefits.

3. From what I have seen so far, most large corporations are scared to death to fire someone individually. Too much risk of lawsuit etc. Much more often, they will let an entire department go at a time to prevent this. So if you are suddenly transferred to a new dept without a really good reason.... time to beware.

4. Things like personal hygiene, codes of dress, and inappropriate behavior, are "ususally" kept in check a bit better. Smaller companies tend to slack on professionalism in favor of "getting the job done".

 

[FinanceDude]

The real source of "security" is your "savings and skills"

I was talking to a guy that owns a car dealership - he said the courts have really "swung full tilt" to the employer in firing lawsuits.

Years ago he used to need to be very careful, methodical and fully document the process of firing someone - in fear of some successful wrongful discharge lawsuit.

Now a days, he says it is "simply screaming you're outta here".......

As the unemployment rises, there's only going to be more power in the employer.

Repeat out loud: LBYM LBYM LBYM

Car dealerships have been like that for many years, don't let him fool you............

 

[ziggy29]

* Forced ranking within a group is bad because it incentivizes you to hurt your peers instead of contributing to the group, and also incentivizes you to surround yourself with bad performers

Not only that, but it means that if someone is performing satisfactorily, once the company prunes the dead wood, that same person with the same level of productivity is now performing unacceptably in the next round of evaluations.

Repeat enough times, and someone who used to be one of the better performers could keep their current level of production and be at risk of being axed before too long.

And you're right -- this "someone has to be on the bottom" approach to management and personnel issues isn't exactly conducive to helping your colleagues succeed. In that case, helping their 'teammates' is just what conscientious professionals do.

 

[Marquette]

They briefly tried to go to a forced-ranking system here. My boss's response was "Well, everyone in my group is a 5, the rest of you a**-clowns better line up your f***ing monkeys behind us."

 

[Milton]

Dave, I think you'll find that this board is filled with people with graduate degrees and professional certifications of the highest difficulty. Even so, most of us have seen enough to know that competency is necessary but not sufficient to ensure continued employment.

You may be right in that there is some rhyme and reason to who gets fired. That may actually be a good thing because it shows that the universe does have some rules. However, I have seen plenty of FOBs (friends of the boss) do little, strut around, create unnecessary and counterproductive chaos, and still remain employed. Trust me, no matter how good you are or how many black belts you have (in Six Sigma or in one of the martial arts), you cross one of the FOBs even if unintentionally, you're done.

Yep, very true.

Believing in yourself, and working hard to maintain/improve your qualifications and abilities, are certainly worthwhile; but they are not guarantees of job security.

I think the security today comes from ME. It's based on my work ethic, my ability to add value to the company, my desire to learn, and so on.

The downside to buying into the 'I alone am responsible for my job security' [-]crap[/-] trap is that if (or more likely, when) you are eventually let go you will - obviously - blame yourself. And people who blame themselves for being laid off are usually the ones who never work again ("no one wants me. I'm damaged goods, I'm a screw up").

 

[tryan]

I work for a large company with 35,000 employees. We have "forced ranking". Each employee is evaluated on a scale and "ranked" against his/her peers. The goal is to put 10% of the employees into a "top tier", those are the ones who get the large raises and promotions. Then they put 80% into a "middle tier", and those folks get raises about equal to cost of living, and still get promotions, but on a more "spread out" time table based on their abilities/desires. Then they put 10% in a "bottom tier". Those 10% are put on "work improvement" plans, and they must meet with their managers quarterly to discuss. If you are rated in this bottom tier two years in a row, then the company MIGHT let you go if they need to reduce staff headcounts.

My mega corp did something similar ... but we used a single ranking list which was submitted to HR.

Problem with these rating systems is that department heads have little insight into individual performance. Sooo they delegate to middle managers who then might delgate even further. So now a group of 5 or 6 employees is being ranked by a single manager. Obviously his/her PET will head the top of the list and be brought up the chain (for no other reason than than being a brown-nose). Then to add insult to injury, the pet gets a better raise that year .... wash, rinse, repeat.

Thanx for reminding me why I got out at 43!

 

[Milton]

Obviously his/her PET will head the top of the list and be brought up the chain (for no other reason than than being a brown-nose).

Naaah, that never happens!

 

[Texas Proud]

I've worked for my company for 20 years, and I've never once said "Gee, that guy was a great employee and they fired him". More likely I've said things like "I'm glad they got rid of him, he was lazy and always trying to push work onto others, never fixed any problems, and didn't have any initiative."

Dave

I have not worked for many companies, but the last one (which laid me off) was much different than what your describe... There were many times that we were wondering why someone good was laid off and the slacker was not... I saw it when the company was only 30,000 employees and even more so when it was 170,000...

As an example... we had a very competent crew where we were located... but then another merger and a lot of people scrambling for jobs... and the winners in our area were the acquired company.... well, even after things settle down, my boss was demoted a couple of times... this was after they had asked him to go head up the Europe and Asia region (he was doing the west US...)... so, he was good enough to cover most of the world, but not to keep the West...

They got rid of me and two others because we were not sitting in 'corporate'... and the new boss did not like the people who had a lot of experience that would challenge her decisions... she wanted robots just out of college who thought she was brilliant...

Now, if they had said I was paid to high for the position it would have been another story... but my skill level was such that I could have been doing the job three levels up (and most of my peers kept asking why he was doing the job and not me... again, not sitting in corp hurts)...

But I am fine... work for a small company now and don't have to put up with the people who don't want to make decisions and just exist... and get the huge paycheck...

 

[Milton]

the people who don't want to make decisions and just exist... and get the huge paycheck.

How do I get one of those jobs?

 

[Spanky]

How do I get one of those jobs?

Count me in.

 

[Khan]

My mega corp did something similar ... but we used a single ranking list which was submitted to HR.

Problem with these rating systems is that department heads have little insight into individual performance. Sooo they delegate to middle managers who then might delgate even further. So now a group of 5 or 6 employees is being ranked by a single manager. Obviously his/her PET will head the top of the list and be brought up the chain (for no other reason than than being a brown-nose). Then to add insult to injury, the pet gets a better raise that year .... wash, rinse, repeat.

Thanx for reminding me why I got out at 43!

And for being physically attractive, and for belonging to the same organizations, and for being able to do sports talk, and for 'having a family to support'...

Reminded me of the high school crap.

 

[Milton]

And for being physically attractive, and for belonging to the same organizations, and for being able to do sports talk, and for 'having a family to support'.

If your boss is a smoker, taking up the habit can be helpful to your career (I've seen several cases of 'smoking buddies' helping each other out). Of course, it might shorten your life, too; but that's another story.

 

[CuppaJoe]

Have we mentioned "the casting couch"?

 

[Khan]

If your boss is a smoker, taking up the habit can be helpful to your career (I've seen several cases of 'smoking buddies' helping each other out). Of course, it might shorten your life, too; but that's another story.

I'd forgotten that one.

Serious individual discussions would take place 'out on the loading dock' because pointy-hair-boss couldn't talk business unless he was inhaling nicotine (smoking was banned indoors).

 

[Rambler]

I've been at a megacorp for nearly 23 years and have been a very senior manager (top 10) for the last 7 years. In that time I have had to "retire" several excellent managers who were over 50, just because my boss didn't like them. As I said, these people were excellent managers, who had been responsible for a great portion of the growth and success of the area I run. I did what was required of me, but at the same time, I have made it clear to my own boss (the global CEO) each time I have had to do it, that it would cost him hundreds of thousands to over 2 million to do (very senior managers do not go away cheaply). In doing this, I have made sure that 1) those who are departing go away in a friendly manner, 2) precendent is set for my own future departure. Only one of those who have been "retired" have been with the company the same amount of time as I have, and none have been in a level as senior as mine. My intention is to depart before the current CEO does, as he is now fully aware of what my departure will cost. Problem is that I have had 5 bosses in the past 6 or 7 years, so nothing is guaranteed.

R

 

[TickTock]

They got rid of me and two others because we were not sitting in 'corporate'... and the new boss did not like the people who had a lot of experience that would challenge her decisions... she wanted robots just out of college who thought she was brilliant.

When competence hurts instead of helps....

 

[growing_older]

My mega corp did something similar. Problem with these rating systems is that department heads have little insight into individual performance.

These systems generally lead to bad results, so middle managers will start gaming the system as soon as they understand what is being imposed. I knew one guy who always had a new hire or two slated to start just before ranking time. They always got low marks (too new to know our systems yet) so the core of the department could be ranked above the bottom tier that faced HR sanctions. The new recruits were clueless. Upper management didn't care since the letter of the process was observed. Ironically, experienced folks loved to work for this guy, because he knew how to protect them from corporate. Moral hazard?

 

[citrine]

Khan said it best....corporate america is just like high school.....if you can get in the clique....you are ok, but if not.....life will be hell.

 

[tryan]

Talk about a clique ... don't forget religion. We did VERY WELL working for a customer who happened to be of the same minority religion as our department head. All came to light when he retired and the funding dwindled annually.

 

[flipstress]

And for being physically attractive, and for belonging to the same organizations, and for being able to do sports talk, and for 'having a family to support'...

I wonder what the ROI on plastic surgery would be... I wonder what the success/satisfaction rates of plastic surgery patients are...Plastic surgery--the key to a successful career and social life!
Time for some research

Sports talk would negate any plastic surgery benefits, however. My eyes start glazing over in a cross-eyed manner, then my mouth gets slack and I start to drool, sometimes my head lolls back--not pretty.

 

[Milton]

The ROI probably depends on what the surgeon has to work with. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (that would be like putting lipstick on a pig, to mix metaphors).

 

[roger r]

I worked for a larger corp for 25 years and bit on a retirement incentive package at 56. We went through a number of work force reductions in my years and I would probably say that there was just a little bit of job security for the 50+ age group. Reason being that to legally avoid an age discrimination suit, getting rid of older workers who might be overpaid, underproducing or otherwise targets for layoffs had to be off-set be also laying off younger productive and lower paid workers so that the median or mean age of lay offs was below a certain age. I'm thinking it was 49? That said, we joked that when you approached or were over the magic age of 55, where you qualified for pension and health insurance, you had a layoff target on your back and there were ways to "pursuade" you to leave voluntarily using severance incentives and making you feel very uncomfortable, insecure, or giving you undesirable responsibilities.

That said, if I were comparing job security in a larger or smaller company I would favor the larger. Just because the larger company probably has a more stable performance history. Early in my career I worked for a smaller company and they went totally belly up and got rid of everyone. Hey, no case for age discrimination there.

 

[Finance Dave]

For yourself this is definitely a good attitude in order to keep competitive in the marketplace. You will probably be among the last to be layed off if times get very rough.

Typical hard ass attitude and makes me angry . I don't usually see red when reading a post. Well there might be a few sloths in the workplace but all in all people want to perform given a chance. You've just worked in your company for the right 20 years. I worked for a large company for 30 years and during the dot-com bust they layed off around 50% of the people. We had a ranking system too. That didn't stop them from laying off very high ranking people who were in the wrong units at the wrong time. I hope you're not the type of guy who sees their layed off collegues outside of work and looks the other way. You need to develop some compassion.

Isbcal, I did not mean to offend you or anyone, I was simply stating what I've seen in my company. I work with degreed professionals only...perhaps others work with production employees...which is a completely different story (they may be laid off REGARDLESS of how hard/smart they work).

As for whether I look the other way when I see them outside of work, it depends. If it's a person I like/admire, or someone who I think got the bad end of the deal, then I approach them and express my compassion for them, even offering contact names or to act as a reference so they can find another job. However, that has rarely been the case. Most of the people I've seen let go are ones who brought it upon themselves by turning down assignments at work, coming in late and leaving early, taking too many breaks during the day, turning in assignments that are late and sloppy, and other such things. I don't feel compassion for people who have control, but choose not to exercise it. If you think that makes me a "hard ass", then I guess I am. I call it accountability.

Dave