Located in a core location and received IM for mid year. Does ageism play role in this? I ask because like many others I have been a top performer but i am 59 years old. Does this mean I will be layed off soon or is it worth making effort to raise the score for year end?
23 replies (most recent on top)
I’m in the same boat as you and I received my first ever IM at 59. Is that some kind of magic number?
Laid off, signed into workday had discovered i had an IM review. Didn't even know it (I assume they wouldn't think I'd log back in.
It was for an issue from a previous year that had nothing to do with my current performance.
In other words I was penalized for something after that years was finalized.
Or they probably dinged me just because I refused to relocate.
Maybe one day there will be class action about the fake reviews and someone will be held accountable for gaming the performance reviews that hurt employees financially and emotionally.
@a5
Same.
My manager also surmised that attrition was met and everyone got a meets this time around.
@ex Yes. But people who get let go after having 2 consecutive IMs generally don't get severance (at least not anymore). Which might be fine if they genuinely deserved those IMs, but as time goes on that will likely be true for fewer people.
@ev
But they are also being told they have to lay off 5-10% of staff every year (more in some areas). So the stacked rackings are just a way to chose who stays and goes.
3 years of meets +1 exceeds, then 2 IM's in a row out of nowhere. Meets at mid-year this year. Still here, somehow.
@cb Seems to be happening pretty often. You might not know since most people don't share the fact that they got an IM (other than anonymously on a board like this). In my group we had a few people who actually were low performers and got two consecutive IMs then fired. But once a team runs out of true low performers, many managers have no choice but to rotate IMs if they don't want to fire anyone. They're told they must give a certain quota of IMs to satisfy the forced ranking curve and if they refuse, they're jeopardizing their own job. So if OP's team has run out of true low performers, OP might've just gotten an IM as a one-off because the manager is rotating that ranking. One of many reasons why the current forced ranking system is asinine.
Yes, ageism is completely what Wells Fargo is doing.
No matter who you are !! Except Daren Stubbs ( amazing how this guy stays employed) word is get ready for another round of big cuts coming
They'll probably lay you off. Start looking soon.
Same Age and got IM twice . Waiting for their action. This Regime will succeed .
@cf because its happening all over Corporate America. Well Fargo is particularly absurd because its been doing this for six years straight. But large layoffs, rolling layoffs, companies using RTO to dodge severance, and companies manipulating performance management processes to dodge severance are going on in a lot of other places as well. And to be frank, we don't exactly have an adminstration in office that has workers' backs right now. And the national news media has mostly bent the knee to that administration.
Why is this not in the news?
@ae if managers are rotating to basically protect their employees, why does that seem to not be happening more often?
If you get 2 "less than meets" ratings on back to back reviews (including both midyear and end of year), HR will contact your manager to build a case for termination for cause due to lack of performance.
If you can avoid a second poor rating, you'll buy time. If your manager tells you that you are still not meeting expectations, you are cooked.
“Less than meets” is a way for them to performance manage you out without paying severance. Charlie is on record as of Q4 2025 griping about a $612 million severance expense for FY 2026. This is an obvious cost-cutting technique, and a weird one, since they lifted the asset cap last year and shouldn’t be under any regulatory distress.
It’s the new bar HR is setting to create more divide in performance ratings
@OP some managers rotate IMs due to forced ranking so they can avoid needing to give the same person two IMs in a row (since after that, they're typically forced to fire the person without severance).
According to me I'm amazing...it must be discrimination then.
Yes, but how are you going to prove it? HR intentionally hides the numbers. Only the government has the power to open the records.
I was given IM out of nowhere for year end 2025, and was bumped back up to meets for mid-year. Bought myself some time for now. It’s not impossible. It’s clear that they hit some attrition number and didn’t want to lose another person for now. Still I know my days are numbered.
Try your best, see if it's possible to raise the score.
If yes, then you are safe.
If no, most likely age related, if your performance did not change
Is that the new race card?