Since we're coming up on year-end, the topic inevitably shifts towards performance reviews and assessing our progress against annual goals. Something that has always bothered me, and recently came up in conversation, is how the "invisible" hand of finance tends to influence the "on-paper" ratings of employees. Maybe it's obvious, given that essentially every other aspect of working in a corporate environment is driven by budgets, but when there is a known quantity of dollars allocated to performance-based compensation at a departmental level one has to wonder how much performance actually matters when the final ratings are delivered? If the goal of leveraging performance-based compensation is to encourage employees to do their best work, it seems odd that you'd make it a zero-sum game.
Title: I didn't realize tenure longevity was an expectation.
Snarky: Don't think of it so much as underperforming. You're just not meeting expectations.