QPR 2010 / MIS 2011 Any Insight into Merit Increases?

[FracusBrown]

QPR uploads into MIS...does this mean there is no subjective input into merit increases?

Will those with easily obtainable goals be rewarded for obtaining a higher QPR score?

Will those who report questionable numbers be rewarded monetarily?

Will honest people with difficult goals be penalized?

Should be interesting...

 

[BURMDPsupe]

Regardless of the score, your division manager still has the final say.

M-

 

[pretzel_man]

As far as I know, the only score that matters is the subjective rating given by your manager.... Not the goals....

In addition, I would expect that MIS will have the same discretion as before.

Changes in pay ranges are coming though.... They are changing the whole structure.

Everyone was told to budget a 3% average raise.

 

[smokey]

Pretzel man.....can you provide further insight on the new pay ranges??? I've heard them referred to has band grade increase, but no specific details have been released to the district. At the current time, HR is verifying job classifications which will apparently dictate your pay band. What % increase can we expect for mgt levels, ft sups, mgrs, for both the non ops and ops functions.

 

[UPSSOCKS]

Helps on the way...

 

[pretzel_man]

Pretzel man.....can you provide further insight on the new pay ranges??? I've heard them referred to has band grade increase, but no specific details have been released to the district. At the current time, HR is verifying job classifications which will apparently dictate your pay band. What % increase can we expect for mgt levels, ft sups, mgrs, for both the non ops and ops functions.

There are no more grade levels. Just bands.

Each band corresponds to a management level (Supervisor, Manager, Division Manager, Staff Manager, District Manager, Region Manager).

Within each band are multiple pay groups, so there are multiple control points for a supervisor.

This means that a hub sup, preload sup, and on road sup could all have different pay ranges.

Pay ranges are supposed to be based on market conditions, based on the job models created before.

I'm gueesing some jobs will be upgraded (on car sup for instance). Others will downgrade. Upgrades will get an automatic pay increase if they are currently making less than 90% of the control point.

Hard to be too positive or negative about this until we see the new control points and jobs compared to previous. The current system was designed in 1991, so I guess its time for an update.

 

[smokey]

There are no more grade levels. Just bands.

Each band corresponds to a management level (Supervisor, Manager, Division Manager, Staff Manager, District Manager, Region Manager).

Within each band are multiple pay groups, so there are multiple control points for a supervisor.

This means that a hub sup, preload sup, and on road sup could all have different pay ranges.

Pay ranges are supposed to be based on market conditions, based on the job models created before.

I'm gueesing some jobs will be upgraded (on car sup for instance). Others will downgrade. Upgrades will get an automatic pay increase if they are currently making less than 90% of the control point.

Hard to be too positive or negative about this until we see the new control points and jobs compared to previous. The current system was designed in 1991, so I guess its time for an update.

As you stated above "control points" would dictate your pay scale or band.....With 1 month prior to quarter 2 and cost plans locked, one would assume they would provide us with a little more detail.

 

[pretzel_man]

As you stated above "control points" would dictate your pay scale or band.....With 1 month prior to quarter 2 and cost plans locked, one would assume they would provide us with a little more detail.

Budgets were put in place with increases included. I believe the budget had a 3% increase. Last year MIS was loaded with a 2.5% increase. What the MIS guideline will be this year.... Don't know, but 2.5% to 3% is a decent guess.

 

[BrownTie]

I wonder if On-Road Sups, PDS(only) and PDS/Line Cordinator(Combo) will have different pay grades? What if you transition between positions? Will your pay be adjusted?

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I have been talking about this with several of the other people and Pretzel is right on in his explanation.
I have also heard that people who get reclassified at a lower pay range and if they are above 110%, they will get red-circled. If they are above the mid-point but not more than 10%, there will be "tendencies" to have their pay increase reduced by 1 or 2% until they get closer to mid-point.
There is great emphasis on QPR being used to provide a "non-subjective" determination of pay increases. Everyone agreed that they would be concentrating on their QPR elements even if it was to the detriment of UPS. Just another nail in the coffin of the "Partnership".

 

[pretzel_man]

I have been talking about this with several of the other people and Pretzel is right on in his explanation.
I have also heard that people who get reclassified at a lower pay range and if they are above 110%, they will get red-circled. If they are above the mid-point but not more than 10%, there will be "tendencies" to have their pay increase reduced by 1 or 2% until they get closer to mid-point.
There is great emphasis on QPR being used to provide a "non-subjective" determination of pay increases. Everyone agreed that they would be concentrating on their QPR elements even if it was to the detriment of UPS. Just another nail in the coffin of the "Partnership".

Jingles,

A couple of points.

I'm pretty sure the high end of the control point range is 130%. I would have to check my notes, but I think that the range is now much wider, so unless someone is more than 30% over the control, no red circle should be necessary.

I believe QPR score coming over actually IS the subjective score. Its the manager's subjective score that is used for the final. At least that's how I remember it. I'll check...

 

[FracusBrown]

I find it very disturbing that this plan in in place and I have learned more about it here than I have leaned from my alleged leaders.

I am also very disturbed at how the QPR process has been handled. In my area, the elements and goals are entered haphazardly to satisfy the requirement of getting them approved by the deadline. The elements are randomly selected, goals are arbitrarily established and the results reported vary from accurate to miscalculated to completely false. Then the day of the deadline the non-sense gets approved without even doing a basic logic check. The result is a completely useless and unfair evaluation. It makes me ill to think these will be used to establish pay and band levels.

Assuming this all gets cleared up, there is another concern or conflict I anticipate. If one truly focuses on the stated goals and dismisses other items, there's going to be a conflict. Cost is the best example. If expense is the first priority in every decision as expected, will others accept that cost does not allow for their expectations to be met? If there are 12-16 stated goals, and pay and rank is based upon achieving them and them only, the rest of the non-stated expectations are going to become an issue.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Jingles,

A couple of points.

I'm pretty sure the high end of the control point range is 130%. I would have to check my notes, but I think that the range is now much wider, so unless someone is more than 30% over the control, no red circle should be necessary.

I believe QPR score coming over actually IS the subjective score. Its the manager's subjective score that is used for the final. At least that's how I remember it. I'll check...

I'll defer to your input. It is always solid and besides, what I have heard has been in Cafe 55.

 

[Popeye]

I find it very disturbing that this plan in in place and I have learned more about it here than I have leaned from my alleged leaders.

I am also very disturbed at how the QPR process has been handled. In my area, the elements and goals are entered haphazardly to satisfy the requirement of getting them approved by the deadline. The elements are randomly selected, goals are arbitrarily established and the results reported vary from accurate to miscalculated to completely false. Then the day of the deadline the non-sense gets approved without even doing a basic logic check. The result is a completely useless and unfair evaluation. It makes me ill to think these will be used to establish pay and band levels.

Assuming this all gets cleared up, there is another concern or conflict I anticipate. If one truly focuses on the stated goals and dismisses other items, there's going to be a conflict. Cost is the best example. If expense is the first priority in every decision as expected, will others accept that cost does not allow for their expectations to be met? If there are 12-16 stated goals, and pay and rank is based upon achieving them and them only, the rest of the non-stated expectations are going to become an issue.

Sounds like how QPR works where I'm from too. Total crock of BS. Has ZERO relationship to what we're actually paid to accomplish.

 

[Catatonic]

Sounds like how QPR works where I'm from too. Total crock of BS. Has ZERO relationship to what we're actually paid to accomplish.

Hopefully they align ... I for one will be working towards the goals on my QPR since that is how I am measured and reviewed for pay increases.

 

[FracusBrown]

Hopefully they align ... I for one will be working towards the goals on my QPR since that is how I am measured and reviewed for pay increases.

The actual score is only partly based upon the actual results. The next level still has a dramatic affect based upon their subjective "managers performance evaluation" You can score 120% effective and still be rated needs improvement on the "managers performance evaluation" or you can score very poorly and be rated an exceptional strength on the "managers performance evaluation."

The "managers performance evaluation" is 50% of the result.

Mathematically you can score 0 on the actual results and be rated an exceptional strength (2.0) on the managers performance evaluation and result in a "perfectly acceptable" 1.0.

In other words, it's only as fair as the goals, the reported results and the evaluating manager...just like it has always been.

It still not clear to me what effect the score will have on bands and merit increases. In part years the score would be visible at this point. I assume there's a reason for hiding the score this year.

 

[pretzel_man]

The actual score is only partly based upon the actual results. The next level still has a dramatic affect based upon their subjective "managers performance evaluation" You can score 120% effective and still be rated needs improvement on the "managers performance evaluation" or you can score very poorly and be rated an exceptional strength on the "managers performance evaluation."

The "managers performance evaluation" is 50% of the result.

Mathematically you can score 0 on the actual results and be rated an exceptional strength (2.0) on the managers performance evaluation and result in a "perfectly acceptable" 1.0.

In other words, it's only as fair as the goals, the reported results and the evaluating manager...just like it has always been.

It still not clear to me what effect the score will have on bands and merit increases. In part years the score would be visible at this point. I assume there's a reason for hiding the score this year.

Actualy, I believe the actual results count zero toward your QPR score.....

Managers subjective rating of each of the four categories score 50%, and I think the managers skills evaluation score the other 50%

QPR score is 100% subjective now (I think). I have to double check. I think it was that way last year as well.

 

[SignificantOwner]

The current QPR process just verifies that we as a company can't focus on a set of goals for any length of time. How do we measure success? Ask me tomorrow after I read my email.

 

[pretzel_man]

The current QPR process just verifies that we as a company can't focus on a set of goals for any length of time. How do we measure success? Ask me tomorrow after I read my email.

Actually, I think it shows that coming up with measureable, meaningful goals for every individual in the company is not possible.

People complained that the QPR process didn't reflect how well they actually did. Now, the true QPR score is solely your manager's subjective rating. Personally, I would much rather my manager's opinion was the score, and not it be based on a number that I personally may have or have not influenced.

In the old model, I never cared about the overall score, I only cared about the 360 ratings from my manager and peers. Those "subjective" ratings were much more important to me than a change in NDPPH which could have been caused by many things.

So, today, I have the numerical goals and my manager can rate me higher or lower than what those numbers show. I find the current method producing a more reflective score than before.

Of course, people will now say that it is too subjective.... Its 100% subjective now. I find that better

 

[FracusBrown]

Actualy, I believe the actual results count zero toward your QPR score.....

Managers subjective rating of each of the four categories score 50%, and I think the managers skills evaluation score the other 50%

QPR score is 100% subjective now (I think). I have to double check. I think it was that way last year as well.

You are correct. I had to check. Regardless of the what the goals, abilities, competencies and actual results are, you can be rated a star or a loser. Hope it's not too late to start sucking up