This is good news. I used to work at Goldman IBD, and the rankings system was really dumb.
The problem was that you had to rate people on a 1-9 scale. As you might imagine, this rating was done via a web survey where you clicked a radio button under a corresponding integer, and under the numbers were verbal cues. The one under 9 was something like "One of the very best people I have ever worked with".
When you get your review, they give you your score for each assessed area, along with the mean score for your position/group (e.g., "associates in IBD").
I distinctly remember that most of the mean scores were between 8 and 9. One was as high as 8.7.
Clearly you had a lot of grade inflation that made the data points of dubious value. Whatever system they chose to replace it is probably better.
DISCLAIMER: I can't get over the paywall and some of the above points might be in the article.
The problem was that you had to rate people on a 1-9 scale. As you might imagine, this rating was done via a web survey where you clicked a radio button under a corresponding integer, and under the numbers were verbal cues. The one under 9 was something like "One of the very best people I have ever worked with".
When you get your review, they give you your score for each assessed area, along with the mean score for your position/group (e.g., "associates in IBD").
I distinctly remember that most of the mean scores were between 8 and 9. One was as high as 8.7.
Clearly you had a lot of grade inflation that made the data points of dubious value. Whatever system they chose to replace it is probably better.
DISCLAIMER: I can't get over the paywall and some of the above points might be in the article.