Moving Forward, Goldman Sachs Will Address Employees By Their Actual Names Rather Than The Numerical Values They've Been Assigned

"Hey, 6, get over here" will be a thing of the past.
Author:
Updated:
Original:

Time was, the Goldman method of evaluating employees included giving them a ranking from 1-9, a designation that followed them around for the rest of the year. Turned in one so-so report that suck in your boss's craw? You were no longer "Rob," but "5". Now, not only will staffers no longer be reduced to a number, but they'll be given a thing called "constructive criticism."

The Wall Street bank is eliminating numerical rankings in employee reviews starting next month, and this fall will experiment with an online system where employees can give and receive continuous feedback on their performance...The firm will keep its 360-degree annual review, in which an employee solicits feedback from his or her manager and a select group of colleagues, including peers and reports. Gone is an employee ranking on a nine-point scale, she said. More firms are eliminating numerical ratings for workers as bosses realize “the person receiving the rating is now stuck with the number for an entire year that labels them,” said Josh Bersin, a principal at Deloitte Consulting LLP who advises companies on talent management.

Goldman Sachs Dumps Numerical-Ranking System for Employees [WSJ]

Related

Banks Prove That They Are Not Too Big To Fail By Saying "We Can Fail" On A Piece Of Paper, Moving On

One way you could spend this slow week is reading the "living wills" submitted by a bunch of banks telling regulators how to wind them up if they go under. Don't, though: they're about the most boring and least informative things imaginable and I am angry that I read them.* Here for instance is how JPMorgan would wind itself up if left to its own devices**: (1) It would just file for bankruptcy and stiff its non-deposit creditors (at the holding company and then, if necessary, at the bank). (2) If after stiffing its non-deposit creditors it didn't have enough money to pay its depositors it would sell its highly attractive businesses in a competitive sale to willing buyers who would pay top dollar. This seems wrong, no? And not just in the sense of "in my opinion that would be sort of difficult, what with people freaking out about JPMorgan going bankrupt and its highly attractive businesses having landing it in, um, bankruptcy." It's wrong in the sense that it's the opposite of having a plan for dealing with banks being "too big to fail": it's premised on an assumption that the bank is not too big to fail. If JPMorgan runs into trouble that it can't get out of without taxpayer support, it'll just file for bankruptcy like anybody else. Depositors will be repaid (if they're under FDIC limits); non-depositor creditors will be screwed just like they would be on a failure of Second Community Bank of Kenosha.

Getty Images

Laying Off Employees Has Been Good For Goldman Sachs

Thanks to everyone who chipped in by cleaning out their desks.

Layoffs Watch '16: Goldman Sachs Tells Investment Bankers To Clean Out Their Desks

The cuts are on top of Goldman's annual axing of the 5% of employees giving the bank a bad name.