Put on PIP.....

Quote
Anonymous said:
Maybe, but I don't think that's quite it. I don't think the reps WANT to be managers, they just want to be overly critical of their manager and convince themselves that they can do better. Of course, they won't ever try, and they'll hind behind excuses like "I'll never be a YES man" and "I'll never be a manager because you have to kiss your RBD's ass", and all that nonsense. It's an excuse to hide from responsibility and then find ways to bash your manager.

I still believe it's as simple as they don't like anyone who has positional authority over them and is ultimately responsible for evaluating their performance. Because, when it comes down to it, most have no desire to get better and confuse tenure with talent. That's why 1/2 the posts start with "In my 20 years in the business...." with the assumption that tenure makes them right. They just want to have someone leave them alone and never hold them accountable to getting better. It's not confined to pharma, though. It's the same thing in every industry.

It's funny. These are the people who claim they don't need a manager, but, in reality, are the ones most in need of a manager. Oh, well....
Click to expand...

"they don't like anyone who has positional authority over them and is ultimately responsible for evaluating their performance"

There-in lies the rub. Evaluating direct reports performance is mostly a subjective effort as opposed to using a quantitative measurement of their performance. Who's to say any manager's subjective evaluation of any employee's performance is correct? Managers are human, they make mistakes too. And that subjective opinion held by the manager can be influenced by those above the manager, which may or may not ever be communicated to the employee. I once had a manager tell me "I'd rather not be transparent" when I asked if his boss had influenced a lowered performance appraisal of me, which I disagreed with. I knew who was really behind my lowered performance rating. I also **thought** my boss disagreed with my newly lowered rating, and that he didn't want to lower it. He **may have** tried to defend my performance from being lowered with his boss, and lost the battle. Therefore he became the prick he didn't want to be, and did what he was told to do.

The real reason behind my performance being lowered was never told to me. It was common knowledge at the time that the company did not have a "normal distribution" (bell curve) of performance ratings and was seeking to change that. Senior Exec's had asked the question of "How can everybody be a 2?" (A rating of '1' was the highest rating an employee could earn, and had a direct bearing on the size of one's salary increase. The lower the rating, the lower the raise)

So please do everybody here a favor and spare us with the altruistic crap you've been spewing. Everybody knows there's a lot of politics afoot when it comes to rating employee's. Maybe, just maybe, some employees are justified with their opinions regarding managers and THEIR performance.
 




Anonymous said:
"they don't like anyone who has positional authority over them and is ultimately responsible for evaluating their performance"

There-in lies the rub. Evaluating direct reports performance is mostly a subjective effort as opposed to using a quantitative measurement of their performance. Who's to say any manager's subjective evaluation of any employee's performance is correct? Managers are human, they make mistakes too. And that subjective opinion held by the manager can be influenced by those above the manager, which may or may not ever be communicated to the employee. I once had a manager tell me "I'd rather not be transparent" when I asked if his boss had influenced a lowered performance appraisal of me, which I disagreed with. I knew who was really behind my lowered performance rating. I also **thought** my boss disagreed with my newly lowered rating, and that he didn't want to lower it. He **may have** tried to defend my performance from being lowered with his boss, and lost the battle. Therefore he became the prick he didn't want to be, and did what he was told to do.

The real reason behind my performance being lowered was never told to me. It was common knowledge at the time that the company did not have a "normal distribution" (bell curve) of performance ratings and was seeking to change that. Senior Exec's had asked the question of "How can everybody be a 2?" (A rating of '1' was the highest rating an employee could earn, and had a direct bearing on the size of one's salary increase. The lower the rating, the lower the raise)

So please do everybody here a favor and spare us with the altruistic crap you've been spewing. Everybody knows there's a lot of politics afoot when it comes to rating employee's. Maybe, just maybe, some employees are justified with their opinions regarding managers and THEIR performance.
Click to expand...

Just to add to and clarify the post above....

The senior exec's at my former company had indeed asked a fair question regarding what was a lopsided skewing of employee performance evaluations. When looking at employee eval's at an aggregate level, there should have been a bell curve but there was not. Instead, there were too many high performers, and not very many low performance ratings had been given out to the employees.

So the exec's sought to "correct" that. OK, fine and dandy. BUT!!! The down level managers absolutely MANGLED the re-distribution of performance ratings. People who didn't deserve a lowered rating got one anyway simply because some managers protected their buddy's. One manager I knew asked his boss, "OK, we have too many '2' performers, how many '1' performers do we have? (A '1' being the highest performance rating anyone could attain) The boss's response to that question? "I see where you're going, but....."

What the manager I knew wanted to do, was NOT screw one of his employee's by LOWERING their performance, rather he wanted to RAISE a 2-performer to a 1, but there was no way his boss was going to let him do it, simply due to corporate politics.
 




Anonymous said:
"they don't like anyone who has positional authority over them and is ultimately responsible for evaluating their performance"

There-in lies the rub. Evaluating direct reports performance is mostly a subjective effort as opposed to using a quantitative measurement of their performance. Who's to say any manager's subjective evaluation of any employee's performance is correct? Managers are human, they make mistakes too. And that subjective opinion held by the manager can be influenced by those above the manager, which may or may not ever be communicated to the employee. I once had a manager tell me "I'd rather not be transparent" when I asked if his boss had influenced a lowered performance appraisal of me, which I disagreed with. I knew who was really behind my lowered performance rating. I also **thought** my boss disagreed with my newly lowered rating, and that he didn't want to lower it. He **may have** tried to defend my performance from being lowered with his boss, and lost the battle. Therefore he became the prick he didn't want to be, and did what he was told to do.

The real reason behind my performance being lowered was never told to me. It was common knowledge at the time that the company did not have a "normal distribution" (bell curve) of performance ratings and was seeking to change that. Senior Exec's had asked the question of "How can everybody be a 2?" (A rating of '1' was the highest rating an employee could earn, and had a direct bearing on the size of one's salary increase. The lower the rating, the lower the raise)

So please do everybody here a favor and spare us with the altruistic crap you've been spewing. Everybody knows there's a lot of politics afoot when it comes to rating employee's. Maybe, just maybe, some employees are justified with their opinions regarding managers and THEIR performance.
Click to expand...

Whoever you are, you are wasting your talents here at NNI. This is an extremely well written post.
 




Anonymous said:
Maybe, but I don't think that's quite it. I don't think the reps WANT to be managers, they just want to be overly critical of their manager and convince themselves that they can do better. Of course, they won't ever try, and they'll hind behind excuses like "I'll never be a YES man" and "I'll never be a manager because you have to kiss your RBD's ass", and all that nonsense. It's an excuse to hide from responsibility and then find ways to bash your manager.

I still believe it's as simple as they don't like anyone who has positional authority over them and is ultimately responsible for evaluating their performance. Because, when it comes down to it, most have no desire to get better and confuse tenure with talent. That's why 1/2 the posts start with "In my 20 years in the business...." with the assumption that tenure makes them right. They just want to have someone leave them alone and never hold them accountable to getting better. It's not confined to pharma, though. It's the same thing in every industry.

It's funny. These are the people who claim they don't need a manager, but, in reality, are the ones most in need of a manager. Oh, well....
Click to expand...

I can recall a guy named Ed making this statement when he was initially promoted into management: "I'm no yes man! Nobody's gonna force ME to promote people just because they're a minority or a woman." I laughed to myself and thought "How naive of Ed."

Although Ed truly was naive at the time he first became a manager, he wasn't dumb. He did what he was told to do by his various bosses. He did well too. He retired very comfortably to Florida after a long career as a mid-level manager. Everybody always said he was a "master politician"..... and they were right! But he was definitely a yes man after all was said and done.
 




Anonymous said:
"they don't like anyone who has positional authority over them and is ultimately responsible for evaluating their performance"

There-in lies the rub. Evaluating direct reports performance is mostly a subjective effort as opposed to using a quantitative measurement of their performance. Who's to say any manager's subjective evaluation of any employee's performance is correct? Managers are human, they make mistakes too. And that subjective opinion held by the manager can be influenced by those above the manager, which may or may not ever be communicated to the employee. I once had a manager tell me "I'd rather not be transparent" when I asked if his boss had influenced a lowered performance appraisal of me, which I disagreed with. I knew who was really behind my lowered performance rating. I also **thought** my boss disagreed with my newly lowered rating, and that he didn't want to lower it. He **may have** tried to defend my performance from being lowered with his boss, and lost the battle. Therefore he became the prick he didn't want to be, and did what he was told to do.

The real reason behind my performance being lowered was never told to me. It was common knowledge at the time that the company did not have a "normal distribution" (bell curve) of performance ratings and was seeking to change that. Senior Exec's had asked the question of "How can everybody be a 2?" (A rating of '1' was the highest rating an employee could earn, and had a direct bearing on the size of one's salary increase. The lower the rating, the lower the raise)

So please do everybody here a favor and spare us with the altruistic crap you've been spewing. Everybody knows there's a lot of politics afoot when it comes to rating employee's. Maybe, just maybe, some employees are justified with their opinions regarding managers and THEIR performance.
Click to expand...

Interesting....you site a single example that occurred at a different company that you can't even be 100% sure even happened like you think it did, and that means all managers are 'yes' men? Forgive me if I don't jump right on board and agree with you. I can tell you from experience, at NNI, management is encouraged to challenge and disagree. If your manager doesn't do that, then that's his issue, but not some quiet compliance that's expected by corporate.

As far as ratings go, having subjective measures that allow a manager the opportunity to partially rate you on your skills actually benefits most reps. Rating you completely on your performance is possible, but that means there is no difference between you and your partners. That the deadbeat working 10 to 2 on your team gets the same rating you do. When it comes promotion time, all of you get promoted or none of you do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a system anyone would like.

The bottom line is this: 90% of managers are pretty good at what they do. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do. Again, I feel you don't like them just because they are your boss, not because they suck. You want to do things your way and always get good evaluations because you think you deserve them. Congrats to you. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because, believe it or not, when it comes to YOU, you might be a little bit biased.
 




Anonymous said:
Interesting....you site a single example that occurred at a different company that you can't even be 100% sure even happened like you think it did, and that means all managers are 'yes' men? Forgive me if I don't jump right on board and agree with you. I can tell you from experience, at NNI, management is encouraged to challenge and disagree. If your manager doesn't do that, then that's his issue, but not some quiet compliance that's expected by corporate.

As far as ratings go, having subjective measures that allow a manager the opportunity to partially rate you on your skills actually benefits most reps. Rating you completely on your performance is possible, but that means there is no difference between you and your partners. That the deadbeat working 10 to 2 on your team gets the same rating you do. When it comes promotion time, all of you get promoted or none of you do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a system anyone would like.

The bottom line is this: 90% of managers are pretty good at what they do. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do. Again, I feel you don't like them just because they are your boss, not because they suck. You want to do things your way and always get good evaluations because you think you deserve them. Congrats to you. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because, believe it or not, when it comes to YOU, you might be a little bit biased.
Click to expand...

90% of our managers are pretty good at what they do? By what criteria?
 








" Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
Interesting....you site a single example that occurred at a different company that you can't even be 100% sure even happened like you think it did, and that means all managers are 'yes' men? Forgive me if I don't jump right on board and agree with you. I can tell you from experience, at NNI, management is encouraged to challenge and disagree. If your manager doesn't do that, then that's his issue, but not some quiet compliance that's expected by corporate.

As far as ratings go, having subjective measures that allow a manager the opportunity to partially rate you on your skills actually benefits most reps. Rating you completely on your performance is possible, but that means there is no difference between you and your partners. That the deadbeat working 10 to 2 on your team gets the same rating you do. When it comes promotion time, all of you get promoted or none of you do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a system anyone would like.

The bottom line is this: 90% of managers are pretty good at what they do. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do. Again, I feel you don't like them just because they are your boss, not because they suck. You want to do things your way and always get good evaluations because you think you deserve them. Congrats to you. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because, believe it or not, when it comes to YOU, you might be a little bit biased."

Anonymous said:
90% of our managers are pretty good at what they do? By what criteria?
Click to expand...

88% of ALL quoted statistics are made-up on the spot.
 












Anonymous said:
Obsolete by design. If you dont believe me, check up on how big league HR consulting companies get real data on managers.
Click to expand...

So now you're a expert in survey design as well? Your talents never end.

So, the question phrased "I have a good manager" that you get to complete on eVoice is "obsolete by design"? How much more straighforward can you get?
 




Anonymous said:
So now you're a expert in survey design as well? Your talents never end.

So, the question phrased "I have a good manager" that you get to complete on eVoice is "obsolete by design"? How much more straighforward can you get?
Click to expand...

I think the question could be a lot more straight forward.

Maybe the question should have four choices that anyone taking the survey could pick and choose from. They could RATE their manager's performance as opposed to answering with a simple yes or no.

The four choices could be: Excellent, Good, Fair & Poor.

But I doubt anything like that will ever hit eVoice
 




Anonymous said:
I think the question could be a lot more straight forward.

Maybe the question should have four choices that anyone taking the survey could pick and choose from. They could RATE their manager's performance as opposed to answering with a simple yes or no.

The four choices could be: Excellent, Good, Fair & Poor.

But I doubt anything like that will ever hit eVoice
Click to expand...

It's a 5 point rating scale based upon how much you agree with the statement. Have you ever even read your eVoice survey? You're asking for what's already there.
 




Anyone who has been with Novo for a least a few years knows that eVoice is a joke.

Why? Because reps give their managers good to great marks regardless of what they actually think about their manager. eVoice is not anonymous, no matter what the company tells you.

Give your manager a low mark, and he/she will find out who it was on their team. You will then be targeted, and managed out. Just the truth.
 








Anonymous said:
Interesting....you site a single example that occurred at a different company that you can't even be 100% sure even happened like you think it did, and that means all managers are 'yes' men? Forgive me if I don't jump right on board and agree with you. I can tell you from experience, at NNI, management is encouraged to challenge and disagree. If your manager doesn't do that, then that's his issue, but not some quiet compliance that's expected by corporate.

As far as ratings go, having subjective measures that allow a manager the opportunity to partially rate you on your skills actually benefits most reps. Rating you completely on your performance is possible, but that means there is no difference between you and your partners. That the deadbeat working 10 to 2 on your team gets the same rating you do. When it comes promotion time, all of you get promoted or none of you do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a system anyone would like.

The bottom line is this: 90% of managers are pretty good at what they do. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do. Again, I feel you don't like them just because they are your boss, not because they suck. You want to do things your way and always get good evaluations because you think you deserve them. Congrats to you. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because, believe it or not, when it comes to YOU, you might be a little bit biased.
Click to expand...

The above post happened to me and I have all the documentation to prove it. I am just waiting until shit hits the fan and then bring it all out. Even recorded "evals" on how good I am doing but when the fact report comes out its totally the opposite. Novo is setting themselves up for a world of shit over the next few years. Not with me per say but my example plus another example here and there and next thing you know you are on the cover of cafepharma regarding a class action....
 




Anonymous said:
It's a 5 point rating scale based upon how much you agree with the statement. Have you ever even read your eVoice survey? You're asking for what's already there.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on now. eVoice? Really? Have you, your significant other or anyone you know ever worked for a large company where part of managerial compensation is tied to feedback survey? If so, show them our surveys, ask how they compare. If not, I plead with you to go to a top HR consulting website and peek around for 2 minutes. The ones I know wont show you actual copies of their surveys, but you can tell by the description that they dont play around with questions like "click yes if my manager is cool, click no if they are a poopie-head".

I'll give you this: eVoice is a lot better than the crock of sh** we had at my last company. But its far from gold standard, even for Pharma. I've seen and heard about some surveys where RBDs and above get coaching from 3rd party executive coaches based on survey feedback. And many steps were taken to protect identity of those surveyed. Just sayin'.
 




Anonymous said:
Anyone who has been with Novo for a least a few years knows that eVoice is a joke.

Why? Because reps give their managers good to great marks regardless of what they actually think about their manager. eVoice is not anonymous, no matter what the company tells you.

Give your manager a low mark, and he/she will find out who it was on their team. You will then be targeted, and managed out. Just the truth.
Click to expand...

So wrong. We all rated our manager bad and he had to put slides up at our meeting to show how we ranked him
Vs his peers! Best day of my life! It was all I could do not to laugh when he made excuses of why we didn't all rank him a 5.
 




Anonymous said:
Anyone who has been with Novo for a least a few years knows that eVoice is a joke.

Why? Because reps give their managers good to great marks regardless of what they actually think about their manager. eVoice is not anonymous, no matter what the company tells you.

Give your manager a low mark, and he/she will find out who it was on their team. You will then be targeted, and managed out. Just the truth.
Click to expand...

It's not the truth. It's wrong. Don't expect anyone to come up with anything that will appease the "eVoice isn't anonymous" conspiracy theorists. Quit saying you're telling the truth when all you're doing is stating your uneductaed opinion.
 








Similar threads

Got setup, put on PIP..
Replies
142
Views
31K
Novo Nordisk
Anonymous
What do you do when you get put on probation?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Novo Nordisk
anonymous
Affairs put on hold due to the Coronavirus
Replies
8
Views
3K
Novo Nordisk
anonymous
We would be fired if we put up numbers like Charlie Kimball. Can you put the 15-20 million back into
Replies
14
Views
1K
Novo Nordisk
anonymous
Obesity Reps being put on plans?
Replies
21
Views
3K
Novo Nordisk
anonymous
Top Bottom
Back
Quote