Inscrivez-vous ou connectez-vous pour rejoindre votre communauté professionnelle.
You have to pay your stars incredibly well — but those funds sometimes come from employees who haven’t performed as well. And, you may need to terminate underperformers We have a structured performance management system that is designed to drive managers to make the right (and sometimes tough) choices. As part of our system, all managers rated their employees: •2.5 meant you were underperforming and that you had to improve significantly or you would be terminated. •3.0 meant that you were performing your job adequately. You were solid, but not great. •3.5 meant you were doing a good job. You went above and beyond when needed. •4.0 meant that you were a star. You went above and beyond regularly and you had potential to be on the way to a promotion. •4.5 meant you were a true superstar. Do you agree?
actually problem is not with the PMS rating the problem is with your supervisor if he takes all your deliverables in a positive way and honestly rate your endeavours then there is no issue for you to make the career progress according to your wish.
The PMS ratings are the honest guidelines to assess an individual’s performance. But, we need to look at the persons who all are responsible to make PMS rating correctly and honestly. Truly, the supervisors are sometimes biased in making the rating honestly and correctly. Therefore, we can conclude in saying that the PMS ratings are honest, but the men behind it sometimes are biased.
Avez-vous besoin d'aide pour créer un CV ayant les mots-clés recherchés par les employeurs?