Life after GSK

What did you end up doing after you were laid off or forced out due to this new rating system? I am near the end and very depressed/burned out after having been treated like dirt by very ambitious middle managers.

 

I've opened a bagel franchise and have a new lease on life. I am amazed at the leadership vacuum that exists in PTS/IMS

 

We're you given a "5" rating? Did not know they were using these ratings to force people out. Just curious because my ambitious middle manager keeps telling us it is OK to get a 4.

 

I was given a 5 rating, which initiates mandatory performance management. The odds are against you when that process starts, especially in certain groups.

A 4 seems ok - for now at least. Just make sure to stay on your manager's good side...they have absolute power over you and can do considerable damage to your career if provoked. I went from good ratings to being untouchable as a 5, and hiring managers only care about your most recent rank.

Good luck.

 

It is great that you found happiness! PTS is highly political, and only the managers and 'in crowd' seem to be deemed successful. I personally am not good at politics.

 

Post-GSK, I got a job at generic company. 100% happy.

Pay is less, but every other aspect of the job is far superior to my final GSK-PhamDev position.

This place is lean/mean with no fat.

They have very competent management - if not they'd be out of business - very competitive.

GSK was a mess for the last decade. Only surviving on the fat (previous projects/cash reserves) it built up in previous 20 years.

Absolutely thrilled to be out of that stinking mess - endless meaningless re-orgs - endless mgt initiatives that went nowhere, all talk no action.

Trying to outsource their way to success - good luck with that!

And the final insult was the new performance plan where they forced formerly top performers into poor performance categories (4 & 5).

What a dreadful organization.

In short, my life after GSK is better! (but a little less income).

 

Re: getting a 4

I was given a 4 rating and left when my entire department was axed - so the rating didn't really matter to my ultimate fate. Could have influenced my fate if I wanted to move from RTP to Philly but I wanted know part of that scene. (Just delaying the inevitable next round of lay-offs.)

I was also told by my ambitious middle manager that a 4 was not too bad. Under the new system, a certain % of people MUST BE classified as poor performers, so someone has to be a 4. It really just means other people in your group and your grade level did somewhat better than you did - not that you are not performing well.

Personally, I found getting the 4 insulting. In my many years with the company I had never received a below average rating - usually alternating between a notch above average or average every other year. I know that I am very favourably perceived by most co-workers and previous supervisors. I won't go into details but my 4 was the result of a very odd set of circumstances in our group (small # of people in my group, small # of people at my level, small # of 'high visibility projects' etc) which resulted in an odd distribution of the workload and hence an odd distribution of the rewards.

I know of several other people at my level who were is similar situations - getting stuck with a 4 rating because (1) someone has to get it and (2) not being politically connected/not having a supervisor who can/will fight for you.

To be objective about it, under the current system where handing out 4s and 5s is mandatory, I think a 4 could be tolerable if they cycle the 4s among various people who are more or less equal performers - and not stick it to the same person year after year. If I was a manager ordered to hand out 4s, I think that's what I'd do.

I don't have any inside info on the 5 rating, though it is my understanding that it does trigger mandatory corrective action. If the people getting 5s were subject to the same arbitrary and peculiar circumstances that led to me getting a 4, there may be nothing they can do to fix the problem other than hope for better circumstances (better project assignments, stronger boss) the next year.

Anyway - good luck to those who have to deal with their 4s and 5s. My best advice is to remember that everything at GSK changes - so the current performance system mandating a certain % of poor performers will undoubtedly change.

I'm certainly glad my new job has no mandatory performance distribution targets.

 

I'm interested to hear if there were any 5s to survive corrective action. I personally know tons of 4s - I wouldn't feel bad to be in that situation. At least you have a chance.

 

Re: getting a 4

Thank you for taking the time to post this. Good luck to you in your new job.

 

In my former dept (I'm no longer with GSK due to recent RTP cuts) we had someone get a 5 last year (before this year's lay-offs).

That person did work their way off of the 5 list this year and did transfer out of our department right before the lay-off's kicked in.

So there is one example of a former 5 that survived this year's lay-offs and is safely employed in an RTP dept that has not (yet) been hit with lay-offs. Even though everyone else the department was cut, regardless of performance.

Just goes to show you how much luck there is involved with surviving lay-offs. Largely depends on which dept you happen to be in when lay-offs hit - not your performance or the range of skills you have that would allow you to do well in many other depts.

(Ironically, getting that person off the 5-list and out of our dept ultimately hurt another person in our group who had to get the 5 this year. What a terrible system - mandating that a supervisor designate someone to be a poor performer regardless of whether the supervisor is satisfied with their performance!!!)

 

Thanks for your honesty. I agree there is an element of luck. A low performer in one group could meet expectations in another. They were encouraging me to transfer as well - but too late after my reputation was trashed.

 

Just to let you know, SB had an equivalent rating system years ago. It was indeed used to rank people, to identify "weak" performers and to create a paper trail for who would be chosen to leave if/when the next and then the next downsizing occurs. As someone involved in having to chose rankings for many staff, this is a truthful representation.

Some depts tried to work around the problem by cycling ratings from year to year, so no one person would have a repeat "not suitable" rating. Others, simply rated the same people a few years running, and then either the people were no longer employed, or, magically, the rating system was revised to something less harsh as it caused so much distrust amongst the employees. Of course, then, it was thought that the company sought amongst the best possible hires, so how does one rank good people so poorly year after year? Now, though things are different as many skilled people are no longer employed, and many who are left are just hanging on until some doom day arrives.

 

We got rid of all the 4 and 5's when we eliminated EDS.

 

Can we talking you out of boiling bagels and come back and work for us? We are getting rid of all the crappy leadership in PD/IMS and starting with a fresh team. The crew that has done nothing in the last 4 years is on the way out.

 

I've heard that this was done before, but no further info. Thanks.

 

Sure. Where do I apply?

 

You are too hopeful, or sarcastic...can't tell which. Either way, with this system in place, year after year the process requires some people to get 5's and 4's. At some point, when all that are left are truly good actual performers, event they have to be subdivided into good, bad, worst. Only when the entire organization gets fed up, and managements begin to stand firm against the year upon year denigration of staff, increased staff apathy, and staff negative feedback will they system then change .... to something else that has been tired before. Just have to be around long enough to see the "people management" approach cycle through again, and again.

 

We are already at that point.

In my opinion there are many departments, especially small departments, that only have "truly good actual performers."

Of course you can always rank people "top to bottom", but that doesn't mean that the 'bottom' person is not an outstanding, fully capable contributor to R&D projects with no obvious 'deficiencies' to remedy.

Many RTP departments were staffed entirely with people with 15-25+ years of experience. With the nearly complete ban on new hiring in the last 5 years, and the relatively low turnover in RTP, many groups were, in my opinion, genuine all-star teams with no poor performers. The few poor performers that had been around, were weeded out during previous lay-offs (every 2-3 years for last 10-15 years!). Of course this varies by department, but the groups that I worked with in RTP were staffed with absolutely rock-solid scientists.

The recent RTP lay-offs greatly diminished the harmful impact of this year's new performance system. Why fuss about being a 4 or 5, if you're whole department is being let go and you're getting a nice severance package? That was my position.

If not for this year's lay-offs many, many people would have more aggressively balked at this year's performance system and ratings. It will be interesting to see how Philly & UK make out with this system in the next few years.

Of course, most likely scenario is GSK will change the performance system before it entirely blows up, so probably no reason to get too obsessed with this.

 

Written like someone who has been in the trenches, but who does not think as those on the very top, where, to them, there are always a number of "lowest" performers, even if they are the lowest of a good bunch. If there is going to be a "need" to cut staff, efforts, that will be done one way or another, no matter if those in the trenches feel good staff are being selected to go. Also, you have to acknowledge those employed for 20+ years cost more than even less experienced people who have worked less than 5 years! Plus, he newer people will cost less in future retirement commitments.

A former head of SB used to say he recognized that good people could be hurt when large swats of cuts were being made, but he also said he was not in position to be a sniper, but needed to make decisions from a view of 50,000 feet (this was before today's targeted missles controlled from long distances). Nothing today changes that as a concept when management is trimming staff to save money.