GM has reportedly cut more jobs, targeting underperforming employees through the automaker’s revamped annual performance evaluation system. Affected workers were notified last Friday. The updated evaluation system was introduced in August of 2024, and aims to not only weed out under-performers, but also reward top performers.
According to a report from Detroit Free Press, dozens of workers were let go in the recent round of layoffs, with some of the workers suspecting the move following earlier performance reviews, and others surprised they were let go. The performance reviews are slated to continue through February, with additional layoffs on the way.
The updated evaluation framework transitions from a three-point to a five-point rating scale, designed to categorize employees into one of five groups:
- 5 percent significantly exceeding expectations (top performers)
- 10 percent exceeding expectations (high performers)
- 70 percent meeting expectations (middle-of-the-road performers)
- 10percent partially meeting expectations (low performers)
- 5 percent not meeting expectations (worst performers)
Employees ranked in the bottom 5 percent face termination and are ineligible to reapply for future roles at GM. Additionally, employee bonuses are tied to performance, with top performers receiving 150 percent of the standard bonus, high performers receiving 125 percent of the standard bonus, middle-of-the-road performers receiving 100 percent of the standard bonus, low performers receiving 50 percent of the standard bonus, and the worst performers receiving no bonus.
Back in November, GM laid off approximately 1,000 employees, primarily in the U.S., citing the need for efficiency and competitiveness. Many workers were notified via email, leading to some controversy. A GM spokesperson stated that these changes aim to foster a culture of high performance and collaboration. Several months prior in August, GM terminated more than 1,000 salaried software and services workers in a similar manner, many of which worked at the automaker’s Global Technical Center in Warren, Michigan.
In an interview with Detroit Free Press, labor expert Marick Masters emphasized the importance of fairness in the evaluation program, noting that transparent and equitable practices can actually improve morale by rewarding high performers while addressing underperformance. On the other hand, favoritism or perceived unfairness may have the opposite effect, and could negatively affect employee morale.
Comments
How many extra points were awarded if you are DEI qualified?
The only people that are in the non-protected class are white males
None, but you get 100 extra points for removing diesels
How stupid. Ford got suit up the wazoo for a program just like this. What happens if all of your people are exceptional performers? What happens if none of your employees are poor performers? GM would be the worst place for celery person to work these days. You would think Barra being an HR person with no better.
Why Ford would dress up any ass that worked there by putting a suit on them is crazy. But then again GM hiring a celery worker really seems crazy, good chance they could be charged with Stalk-ing!
And there would be others that are green with envy. Carrot top would not have lasted long.
Other news reports I’ve read (true or not?) said that managers are required to rank their staff according to those percentages. In other words, managers are forced to rank 5% of their employees as under performers whether they are or not. In practice for managers, that means dump 5% of your staff whether they’re doing a good job or not…or perhaps don’t particularly like, are older, younger, medical issues, etc, etc.
You’re correct in that Jacques Nasser did exactly the same thing at Ford. They were indeed sued except he’s the one that got dumped by the Ford family for that and several other issues. He was wildly unpopular with Ford employees that I knew.
FYI, based on 15,000 gm employee reviews on Glassdoor (largest employee feedback site) only 58% of those employees think Mary is doing a good job which is well below the 70-90% range for most large company CEO’s. Even that mediocre approval rating would likely be much lower based on more recent reviews but the ratings include employee feedback from years ago.
I worked for a company just like that…Senior Managers were the top 5%, Mid-level employees were 85% and low level were 5% (low level had 3 months to improve) Our bonuses were paid on the same metric. Needless to say the top 5% (who ran the company) got a helluva bonus, while blasting us all that were were marginal.
And as soon as those low-performers are out the door, managers will be required to fill that metric with some of the higher performers so they can be let go – rinse and repeat.
There are loads in every business.
If it was my business I would want hard dedicated workers doing the work and they would be rewarded. Slackers need not apply
Dump Mary Barra, GM needs new and better leadership.
100% !!!! Even the stock hasn’t moved in years. I’ve had a new Vette on order since November and there’s still constraints on the standard black wheel. Ya need 3 things to build a car–an engine, wheels and an interior..how hard is that after 107 years being in business?
Mary should be the first to go.
So, even if your a great worker, but your manager has something against you, he can have you kicked out. That is just wrong. Same can be said for the lazy ones, but your buddy buddy with the manager, so your saved.
I thought the when the women ran big business they were supposed to be so much more people focused???? I guess they need to bring the boys back in. Maybe they actually know who can design and engineer vehicles when picking winners and losers.
Remember Mary was running things when salaried retirees lost their health care. I guess most have forgotten that. Mary was so nice to us. I’m so glad to work there 35 years and then lose my health care, replaced by a high deductible health plan.
The situation is pretty simple. GM has spent too much money on EVs and there’s been no ROI so far. Nobody from the SLT has been fired despite the fact that they are the employees that’ve led the company down this path. Instead there have been numerous layoffs so far and now this new scheme to eliminate even more staff that did not participate in the management decisions costing the company so dearly.
Stock holders should cut Mary’s job based on performance reviews. never ending “Constraints” on parts for production of the Corvette (after 5yrs) and a stock price that hasn’t moved since they came back from bankruptcy years ago.
Mark,
The core aspects of the business are not well-run anymore. The product launches are always behind schedule, poorly executed and the products themselves, especially the EVs, have been riddled with issues. I read here how folks order an old-fashioned van that GM has been building for 30 years and it takes the company a year or more to deliver it. Owners have vehicles that stay at a dealer out-of-service for three or more months waiting on parts. What’s worse is that communication with consumers is non-existent. These are the core deliverables for any company and signal how well run it is. GM may be profitable but they haven’t grown in decades and can’t seem to do the simple things well anymore.
Between the Fall of 1976 and the Fall of 1979, GM replaced essentially their entire portfolio of cars with all-new B, C, and D body cars in ‘76; new A and A-Special cars in ‘77, new E-bodies in ‘78 and new X-cars and the K-body in 1979. In total it was 30 all-new cars with new engines and an untold number of assembly plants that had to be retooled. GM pulled off this astonishing feat with essentially no issues or delays and aside from some issues with the X-cars, all the products from those years have endured and stood the test of time.
There is no way, todays GM could even begin to pull off such a challenge.
Supposedly the bell-shaped curve applies to any population, even an all-star team. As a manager, I had to use this analogy where I worked. After a couple of layoff periods it becomes very challenging.