[UncleMeat]

There is a new system that has annual reviews rather than biannual reviews. It slightly changes the expected rating distributions and introduces a "meets most" rating that is between the old "needs improvement" and "consistently meets expectations" ratings. There is no expected PIP rate. It was developed in 2021 and rolled out early in 2022. The ratings changes were small compared to process changes, which are intended to make the entire system take way less time for everybody. The rollout and tooling was a disaster but it will hopefully improve over time.

People then leap off a reasoning cliff and assume that this means that everybody who is rated "not enough impact" or "meets most" in February will be fired. This would have required some pretty legendary economic foresight by the execs and it would require them to have done a lot of unnecessary work to redo the entire performance review process rather than just changing the ratings system.

I have no idea if Google will do layoffs. But the idea that GRAD was created to facilitate layoffs is fucking stupid.

[oblio]

> There is no expected PIP rate.

Do you say that as at least a senior manager or based on what the company told you as an individual contributor?

[UncleMeat]

I've been managing a team at Google for like six years now. I'm doing GRAD ratings literally today (spending too much time avoiding it on HN). I have not been told of an expected PIP rate either explicitly or through innuendo. In fact, I have never PIPed a single report in my entire time here and I've never even got a whiff of people being concerned about that.