QPR

[pretzel_man]

let's put some numbers to what everyone is saying.... i'm following everyone's basic premise, but examples may help distinguish the differences.

for instance, let's say the district avg for managers was 1.05 -- what would the merit increase be for a manager rated at 1.15 in everyone's understanding of how this is going to roll out this year?

This is unknown....

HR says this years MIS process will work different than last year. Last year worked different than previous years.

They say that there will be a maximum created by indivudual. The maximum will depend on QPR score and Comp ratio.

The person in your example is rated an Acceptable Performer. Also, in your examlple, the district average is lower than the target. IF they normalized, the whole district would have their scores increased.

 

[beentheredonethat]

So, this sounds a lot like the MIP targets, Every year they tweak the targets, make changes so you can't compare year over year. I just heard today our critical skills are being changed for this coming year, since many people SHOULD NOT be Fully acceptable. And FULLY ACCEPTABLE is a "GOAL". Which we shouldn't be able to make.

 

[MORDNEDS]

We were told by my grade 16 manager that he was told from above to rate everyone AP. If not he would have to redo QBRs scores. A few days later HR had meeting with grade 20s and told them that too many people were rated AP and above AP and it most be changed. Complete Bull****

Same happened here. I originally received a SP which i was okay with, and one of my employees fully honest, not biased, and graded on actual performance got an NI. The DM said scores were too high so i got rated to a NI. Then I was told my employees score was too low so i raised it to a FA at which point i was raised to a FA. Thankfully my center manager told me he doesn't do raises based on QPR.

 

[pretzel_man]

Same happened here. I originally received a SP which i was okay with, and one of my employees fully honest, not biased, and graded on actual performance got an NI. The DM said scores were too high so i got rated to a NI. Then I was told my employees score was too low so i raised it to a FA at which point i was raised to a FA. Thankfully my center manager told me he doesn't do raises based on QPR.

Raises WILL be based on QPR score. The same happened last year. This year it will be different (so I've heard), but still based on the QPR.

 

[FracusBrown]

This is unknown....

HR says this years MIS process will work different than last year. Last year worked different than previous years.

They say that there will be a maximum created by indivudual. The maximum will depend on QPR score and Comp ratio.

The person in your example is rated an Acceptable Performer. Also, in your examlple, the district average is lower than the target. IF they normalized, the whole district would have their scores increased.

The target is greater than 100? Best district in the county doesn't come close to scoring 100 on the balanced scorecard. How can the target be greater than perfection?

 

[pretzel_man]

The target is greater than 100? Best district in the county doesn't come close to scoring 100 on the balanced scorecard. How can the target be greater than perfection?

That was part of the QPR presentation from HR. The target is greater than 100.

 

[Catatonic]

The target is greater than 100? Best district in the county doesn't come close to scoring 100 on the balanced scorecard. How can the target be greater than perfection?

I scored 113 last year and I know several others that scored above 100 so 100 is not perfection.

In fact, I think Scott Davis scored 10 million last year!

 

[FracusBrown]

Scores seemed unusually high this year. If I'm not mistaken the results used to be capped at 120. Since the caps seem to have been removed, I guess the moving target has been raised without telling the participants of the game.

Regardless of how it's calculated, scored, rated or minupulated, the total net cost to the company will likey be exactly what they plannned it to be. The cost is already planned and the company is not likely going to risk allowing EPS to take a hit by a miscalculation of unknown QPR results.

Makes sense that they dont tell you what you get until they have time to crunch the numbers. Suppose they said in advance that a 120 on QPR results in a 4% increase and everyone got 120. They'd be in quite a pickle if they only planned for QRPs scrores of 100 and 2.5% increases.

It's all just a matter of how they slice up the planned expense. The QPR results are calculated and locked in place. The expense is planned. The effect on individual pay is unknown to the players, but the company knows what its going to cost before they know the QPR results.

 

[pretzel_man]

Scores seemed unusually high this year. If I'm not mistaken the results used to be capped at 120. Since the caps seem to have been removed, I guess the moving target has been raised without telling the participants of the game.

Regardless of how it's calculated, scored, rated or minupulated, the total net cost to the company will likey be exactly what they plannned it to be. The cost is already planned and the company is not likely going to risk allowing EPS to take a hit by a miscalculation of unknown QPR results.

Makes sense that they dont tell you what you get until they have time to crunch the numbers. Suppose they said in advance that a 120 on QPR results in a 4% increase and everyone got 120. They'd be in quite a pickle if they only planned for QRPs scrores of 100 and 2.5% increases.

It's all just a matter of how they slice up the planned expense. The QPR results are calculated and locked in place. The expense is planned. The effect on individual pay is unknown to the players, but the company knows what its going to cost before they know the QPR results.

I think you are mixing a couple of things. QPR score is not capped at 120 and has not been for quite a while.

I think 1.99 is the highest possible score.

1.00 = Fully Acceptable
1.25 = Strong Performer
1.50 = Exceptional Performer

It has been this way for a number of years.

 

[menotyou]

I think you are mixing a couple of things. QPR score is not capped at 120 and has not been for quite a while.

I think 1.99 is the highest possible score.

1.00 = Fully Acceptable
1.25 = Strong Performer
1.50 = Exceptional Performer

It has been this way for a number of years.

Just a thought, as I noticed the .99. Is that something UPS does in all parts of operations? I know we use to hear it all the time in reference to the time allowed for helpers on the clock.

 

[pretzel_man]

Just a thought, as I noticed the .99. Is that something UPS does in all parts of operations? I know we use to hear it all the time in reference to the time allowed for helpers on the clock.

MeNotYou,

In regard to time allowed, UPS has used hundredths of an hour forever. (.01 is one hundredth of an hour)

While I don't really know the history behind that, I believe its for a few of reasons.

First, in the days of manual calculations, it was much easier to add up numbers that are in hundredths than adding up minutes.
Second, the old time study unite (not UPS units) were in hundred thousands of an hour. Again, this made it easier to add up.
Finally, measuring in hundredths of an hour is more precise than in minutes.

Of course, this measurement system has caused confusion as well.

For instance, when someone says a load is planned to arrive at 1030, is that 20 hundredths after 10 (18 minutes) or 30 minutes after 10.

Anyway, sorry for the long (and possibly confusing) answer.

 

[menotyou]

MeNotYou,

In regard to time allowed, UPS has used hundredths of an hour forever. (.01 is one hundredth of an hour)

While I don't really know the history behind that, I believe its for a few of reasons.

First, in the days of manual calculations, it was much easier to add up numbers that are in hundredths than adding up minutes.
Second, the old time study unite (not UPS units) were in hundred thousands of an hour. Again, this made it easier to add up.
Finally, measuring in hundredths of an hour is more precise than in minutes.

Of course, this measurement system has caused confusion as well.

For instance, when someone says a load is planned to arrive at 1030, is that 20 hundredths after 10 (18 minutes) or 30 minutes after 10.

Anyway, sorry for the long (and possibly confusing) answer.

Thank you. It makes sense, now that I understand the reasoning.

 

[beentheredonethat]

I think you are mixing a couple of things. QPR score is not capped at 120 and has not been for quite a while.

I think 1.99 is the highest possible score.

1.00 = Fully Acceptable
1.25 = Strong Performer
1.50 = Exceptional Performer

It has been this way for a number of years.

I agree with you and these numbers, however, what I find frustrating, is some elements on the QPR have a goal of (for example 100% training). It's impossible to do better then 100% in that element, so you are effectively capped at 1.0 on that element. So the more of those you have from your boss, then it becomes impossible to be an exceptional performer, because the individuals goal doesn't allow it. I was fortunate that I only had 1 element worth 15% of my total grade that was capped at a 1.

 

[Catatonic]

I agree with you and these numbers, however, what I find frustrating, is some elements on the QPR have a goal of (for example 100% training). It's impossible to do better then 100% in that element, so you are effectively capped at 1.0 on that element. So the more of those you have from your boss, then it becomes impossible to be an exceptional performer, because the individuals goal doesn't allow it. I was fortunate that I only had 1 element worth 15% of my total grade that was capped at a 1.

I always put these elements at a lower weighted percentage as well as elements over which I had little or no control.
I would heavily weight items I could effect control and gains.
My goal was to be measured on elements over which I had some real control.

 

[FracusBrown]

Ratings also populate the MIS system. Raises are now directly tied to the QPR rating.

The ONLY rater that counts is direct (and indirect) manager. None of the other raters go into the score. The QPR results do not go into the score.

Right or wrong, this is how it works now.

"Results" of Goals and Measures are the "results" I was referring to. They used to be capped at 120. There is no cap now. Dont know when it changed, but results scores are higher than possible before. This allegedly forms the base for the managers evaluations which generate the final QPR score.

Managers leadership competency evaluation = 50%
Managers performance evaluation = 50%
Managers leadership competency and performance evaluation score combined = final rating which populates MIS.
100% subjective based upon managers performance evaluation and managers leadership competency evaluation.
Actual QPR Goals and Measures results have no effect.
Peer and self ratings have no effect.
Leadership Compentency and Job Specific Assessment results populate Career Development.

I know how it works.

I think you are mixing a couple of things. QPR score is not capped at 120 and has not been for quite a while.

I think 1.99 is the highest possible score.

1.00 = Fully Acceptable
1.25 = Strong Performer
1.50 = Exceptional Performer

It has been this way for a number of years.

Goals and measures (results) score used to be capped at 120. The result score for the goals and measures are calculated based upon the numerical goal and actual numerical result entered by the person being evaluated. I understand the actual final QPR score is not directly dependent upon the goals and measures result score.

Those who score low on goals and measures results are not likely to be rated exceptional on the managers competency and performance evaluation.

The entire process is confusing and convoluted. Very few understand how the final score is derived. Regardless of how the qpr score is derived, there is no real established goal that equates to a specific pay increase until AFTER the final scores and evaluations are completed. No one knows what it takes to get a poor, decent, or good raise. If this were a goal establishment excercise, this method would fail.

 

[beentheredonethat]

I always put these elements at a lower weighted percentage as well as elements over which I had little or no control.
I would heavily weight items I could effect control and gains.
My goal was to be measured on elements over which I had some real control.

Wish I worked for you. We've had in my group changes to the goal after the year was over!!!!! All the changes netted us with lower scores. It basically makes you say why bother.. No matter what you do, you won't score all that well, since if you do, they change the goal after the fact. Ridiculous.

 

[pretzel_man]

I agree with you and these numbers, however, what I find frustrating, is some elements on the QPR have a goal of (for example 100% training). It's impossible to do better then 100% in that element, so you are effectively capped at 1.0 on that element. So the more of those you have from your boss, then it becomes impossible to be an exceptional performer, because the individuals goal doesn't allow it. I was fortunate that I only had 1 element worth 15% of my total grade that was capped at a 1.

The QPR doesn't work that way. You can get low scores on each element you mention and still get a high QPR score. It changed to a subjective measure a few years ago.

Generally, the manager should look at how hard or easy it was to make the element as well as whether the commitment was made. They then key enter a rating for each perspective.

The subjective rating is all that counts.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Pretzel... I agree to some extent that you can get a low low score on your QPR and get a high subjective measure. It happened to me. Then I got a new boss, who basically said, your score was low, I'm grading you low. (PERIOD). Of course, this year, I'm super high on my QPR elements, and my new mgr had an opinion that no one can be above Fully Acceptable. Even though I came in ranked 2 out of 60+ people. The whole thing is frustrating. It's not a surprise that another person who has much lower scores on the QPR, who rates lower on virtually every measure came in higher. I don't get it... Scratch that... I get it. I just am frustrated by it.