Anyone know what to expect regarding mgmt raises?

[pretzel_man]

P-man
wish you were my manager!!! In my division, it was 2.5% across the board, regardless of performance, regardless of pay scale.
I think it is a slap in the face, to those who out perform the poorest performers.

But as they say, it is what it is. And I am just thankful that I have job with benefits.

Rose,

I'm sorry that you have a poor management team.

In my group, there were no surprises. The poor performers were told so all year long. We explained the process and let everyone know that poor performers would get less, and good performers more. That's exactly what happened.

I feel bad when I give someone $50 (or less), but... That let me give the higher performers a lot more than 2.5%. That made me feel good and I hope provided an incentive for next year. The way we did it, average performers got only 2% to 2.25%. This freed up money for those that really shined this year.

We had many with 5% and 6% raises. Its not a perfect system, but we worked it as best we could. Everyone knew ahead of time what the plan was.

P-Man

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

In my division, it was 2.5% across the board, regardless of performance, regardless of pay scale.
I think it is a slap in the face, to those who out perform the poorest performers.

Are you sure you're not union? (Think about it.)

 

[constructively dissatisfi]

Rose,

I'm sorry that you have a poor management team.

In my group, there were no surprises. The poor performers were told so all year long. We explained the process and let everyone know that poor performers would get less, and good performers more. That's exactly what happened.

I feel bad when I give someone $50 (or less), but... That let me give the higher performers a lot more than 2.5%. That made me feel good and I hope provided an incentive for next year. The way we did it, average performers got only 2% to 2.25%. This freed up money for those that really shined this year.

We had many with 5% and 6% raises. Its not a perfect system, but we worked it as best we could. Everyone knew ahead of time what the plan was.

P-Man

It's an advantage to work in a group full of losers. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of them around my neck of the woods. Our managment "team" from grade 20 on up don't do anything remotely resembling managing or leading. They don't make things happen, they let them happen. Very demoralizing place to work.

 

[pretzel_man]

It's an advantage to work in a group full of losers. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of them around my neck of the woods. Our managment "team" from grade 20 on up don't do anything remotely resembling managing or leading. They don't make things happen, they let them happen. Very demoralizing place to work.

I have a group of very talented, high performing individuals. Yes, there are the poor performers who got little raises.

I can see who the true losers are... They are always full of excuses.

P-Man

 

[constructively dissatisfi]

The problem with the concept is the measurement again is flawed. your qpr generally has some elements specific to your responsibility but many that are team numbers or numbers completely out of your control. As such until we develop a measurement that totally isolates your performance the concept of basing raises on it is flawed.

I have a full time supervisor that I think does a terrific job. She is not particularly creative may not advance to a manager but she is very good at what she does and she is hard as nails. She will ride 6 days a week work all kinds of crazy hours and do whatever the team needs. I couldn't get her the raise she deserved because someone at a higher level decided she did not do enough to hold her people accountable. Shouldn't I be the person to decide that she did not do enough? Shouldn't I be the person to determine her value to the team? Instead the raises were decided at the divison and ops manager level and handed to me when it became time to review them.

its kind of funny. As a manger I'm allowed to hold people accoutable for the negatives and held accountable for the failures of the team but I'm blocked from having any imput when it comes time to reward the team for their contributions.

I have seen and met many fine people at the corporate level who believe in changing the ways we treat our people. Unfortunately they are not strong enough to dictate policy yet. Maybe before I retire.

Same here Tieguy. In my case it's a grade 20 to decides who gets what. He doesn't even know a lot of the people much less how they perform.

 

[randomUPSISer]

Same here Tieguy. In my case it's a grade 20 to decides who gets what. He doesn't even know a lot of the people much less how they perform.

He knows what the QPR says, and theoretically that's all he would need. Unfortuanatly, the QPR is mostly worthless since its required to fit into a bell curve.

Crappy input = crappy output. The story of UPS

 

[tieguy]

He knows what the QPR says, and theoretically that's all he would need. Unfortuanatly, the QPR is mostly worthless since its required to fit into a bell curve.

Crappy input = crappy output. The story of UPS

some truth to that .

 

[Red Rose Tea]

Are you sure you're not union? (Think about it.)

Sorry don't understand... Are you sure you're not management?

 

[Red Rose Tea]

Rose,

I'm sorry that you have a poor management team.

In my group, there were no surprises. The poor performers were told so all year long. We explained the process and let everyone know that poor performers would get less, and good performers more. That's exactly what happened.




I feel bad when I give someone $50 (or less), but... That let me give the higher performers a lot more than 2.5%. That made me feel good and I hope provided an incentive for next year. The way we did it, average performers got only 2% to 2.25%. This freed up money for those that really shined this year.

We had many with 5% and 6% raises. Its not a perfect system, but we worked it as best we could. Everyone knew ahead of time what the plan was.

P-Man

I still want to work for you. Your too good to be real.

 

[tieguy]

Rose,

I'm sorry that you have a poor management team.

In my group, there were no surprises. The poor performers were told so all year long. We explained the process and let everyone know that poor performers would get less, and good performers more. That's exactly what happened.

I feel bad when I give someone $50 (or less), but... That let me give the higher performers a lot more than 2.5%. That made me feel good and I hope provided an incentive for next year. The way we did it, average performers got only 2% to 2.25%. This freed up money for those that really shined this year.

We had many with 5% and 6% raises. Its not a perfect system, but we worked it as best we could. Everyone knew ahead of time what the plan was.

P-Man

Are you saying everyone knew what they would get ahead of time? someone getting a 6 percent raise would mean someone else had to get zero and someone else less then 1 percent?

how did you tell them all year long. monthly salary reviews all year long?

forgive me but your explanation sounds a little too perfect.

 

[Red Rose Tea]

Are you saying everyone knew what they would get ahead of time? someone getting a 6 percent raise would mean someone else had to get zero and someone else less then 1 percent?

how did you tell them all year long. monthly salary reviews all year long?

forgive me but your explanation sounds a little too perfect.

Thats what I was trying to say and why I would love to work for him. Everything sounds so perfect - directly from a textbook

 

[tieguy]

Thats what I was trying to say and why I would love to work for him. Everything sounds so perfect - directly from a textbook

It would be neat to see someone run a perfect textbook operation.

 

[Red Rose Tea]

It would be neat to see someone run a perfect textbook operation.

Sure would. If we can figure out where Pman operates, we may see it in action.

 

[pretzel_man]

Are you saying everyone knew what they would get ahead of time? someone getting a 6 percent raise would mean someone else had to get zero and someone else less then 1 percent?

how did you tell them all year long. monthly salary reviews all year long?

forgive me but your explanation sounds a little too perfect.

Tie,

I hold quarterly people meetings. We discuss career path for each person. We also rate and rank everyone. During career discussions, we made sure the poor performers knew they were poor performers. During QPR's, we did the same.

We explained that we would give poor performers less and give more to higher performing people. With the new QPR system, the QPR rate and rank matched our people meeting rate and rank.

When it came time for MIS, we just gave out raises based on the rating and ranking we did all year long. We put it in a big spreadsheet and divvy out the money.

The process works. BTW, to give some people a 6% raise, a bunch of people need to get a 2% raise.

P-Man

 

[Catatonic]

I hold quarterly people meetings. We discuss career path for each person. We also rate and rank everyone. During career discussions, we made sure the poor performers knew they were poor performers. During QPR's, we did the same.

We explained that we would give poor performers less and give more to higher performing people. With the new QPR system, the QPR rate and rank matched our people meeting rate and rank.

When it came time for MIS, we just gave out raises based on the rating and ranking we did all year long. We put it in a big spreadsheet and divvy out the money.

The process works. BTW, to give some people a 6% raise, a bunch of people need to get a 2% raise.

P-Man

Almost exactly what we do as well, except we review 3 times a year.
One aspect you did not bring up is if a person is higher in the band pay bracket than another person and they are performing to the same standard:
The actual dollars per month may be the same or close but the percent for the lower salary will be higher to get them closer to 100%.

 

[constructively dissatisfi]

Numbers,

Sorry for taking a while to answer...

First let me tell you how the system works.... Each job has a mid point of pay. Think of this as the 100% point. Generally, the bottom of the pay grade is at about 90% of the midpoint. If any supervisor falls below that bottom end, they are immediately given an equity raise to get to that bottom.

At the other end is the upper limit of the pay scale. Its generally at 120% of the midpoint. Once you get to that point, your raises are nearly eliminated.

Genererally, when giving out raises, a manager should give a higher % raise to a person below the midpoint as compared to a person above the midpoint. Here is the logic I've used for this. Lets say that two supervisor do an equally good job. The same dollar raise is a larger % to the lower paid employee vs. the higher paid employee. Therefore, higher paid employees should generally get lower % increases.

Does this lead to disinterested supervisors? I have not seen that if its done right. You end up with the best supervisors being paid the most and poorer ones paid the least.

The biggest problem I've seen with raises is where poor managers are afraid to give out the $25 raise. If you give everyone the average, I think this leads to more disinterest. I give out low raises to poor performers so extra can be given to better supervisors.

P-Man

The system doesn't take into account that the poorest performer in one group could be better than the best performer in another group. We have a dept manager who's widely recognized as a low performer. Our QPRs are almost completely subjective with little relationship to the work that we actually do. Until this year when he was forced to, our Dept Manager never even had a QPR himself. So we have a low performer rating the performance of everyone in the group. I can tell you for a fact it doesn't work well. The perfect world where P-man works is a long way from where my work group is. Probably all the way at the other end of the Yellow Brick Road.

 

[constructively dissatisfi]

He knows what the QPR says, and theoretically that's all he would need. Unfortuanatly, the QPR is mostly worthless since its required to fit into a bell curve.

Crappy input = crappy output. The story of UPS

I agree 100% that raises should be based on results. But our QPRs have almost no relationship to the work we actually do. They are worthless for that reason. My only objection to the bell curve approach is that it doesn't take into account differences across work groups. The best person in a crappy group may not be as good as the crappiest person in the best group. So their raises end up not being fair.

 

[randomUPSISer]

I agree 100% that raises should be based on results. But our QPRs have almost no relationship to the work we actually do. They are worthless for that reason. My only objection to the bell curve approach is that it doesn't take into account differences across work groups. The best person in a crappy group may not be as good as the crappiest person in the best group. So their raises end up not being fair.

Agree with you 100%. We in IS get rated on the same QPR stuff as full time operations supervisors. I have budgeting, employee relations, etc questions on my QPR. My job involves ZERO budgeting, I have no employees. If I were an incredibly crappy IT person but I put on a farce to look good as a full time supervisor I should theoretically end up as a strong performer since that's how I am rated. In the real world though, Id be an incredible drain on my team since they do IT work, not management work.

That being said, even if I were in the operations as a supervisor, the QPR questions are still incredibly vague and useless for measuring how I am doing. The only one that can truly judge how I am doing is my immediate manager based on the directives that I've been told to meet. UPS has decided that we should all be rated the same regardless of if we are all doing the same job. In order to get everything to fit neatly into an organization wide ratings system the questions have to be extremely vague.

You get what you measure as people fall into line to be measured well. Maybe UPS will realize this in the future when the important groups have idiots, and the unimportant groups end up with brilliant people all because the good people want to be where they can be rewarded.

I suppose that, or the companies that truly believe "People are our #1 asset" will just snatch up the good ones. The funny part is... upper management wouldnt notice since the bad employees would just be scaled up to meet the bell curve and the group would continue to meet a perfect distribution

 

[rocket man]

A Raise for what,? all the new technology . They are making your job obsolete. your only there in case we go on strike. I hope they raise you out the door.

 

[tieguy]

Tie,

I hold quarterly people meetings. We discuss career path for each person. We also rate and rank everyone. During career discussions, we made sure the poor performers knew they were poor performers. During QPR's, we did the same.

We explained that we would give poor performers less and give more to higher performing people. With the new QPR system, the QPR rate and rank matched our people meeting rate and rank.

When it came time for MIS, we just gave out raises based on the rating and ranking we did all year long. We put it in a big spreadsheet and divvy out the money.

The process works. BTW, to give some people a 6% raise, a bunch of people need to get a 2% raise.

P-Man

did you consider it somewhat chancy to discuss their possibly getting a lesser pay raise during a time period when the pay increases were eliminated and you really had not idea if or when they would be restored?