Year-end Performance ratings

The recent stir in large accounting firms is that the year-end managers' consensus meeting is just around the corner. In most of the Big 4, these meetings are held annually by managers. In this meeting, managers will discuss the performance and growth of each staff and senior and will determine a rating for each of them.

There has been much speculation among the staff and seniors about who will get what rating, who will get double-promoted, etc etc. In my opinion, seniority play a bigger role than it should in terms of promotions. It is in fact very common to see some Staff 1s outperform some Staff 2s and certain members in the Staff levels outperform those in the senior levels. The harsh reality of life is: your relationship with the higher-ups have a significant role in defining your performance rating.

You may see two Staff: one performing over expectations, but does not spend any effort in developing relationships with his colleagues (specifically managers); the other staff performing poorly, but has maintained a positive impression amongst managers and seniors. It will not be surprising to see them both getting the same rating. The over-performing individual would probably be disgruntled, considering the greater amount of time and effort put in to make a bigger contribution to the firm.

I am not saying that one should forget about his/her work ethics in an attempt in becoming a social butterfly in the office, but relationships should not be taken lightly. Being able to please and impress is just as important after securing a job as it is during the job-search phase. There is a saying: "it is not what you know that matters, but who you know." Despite down-playing the significance of actual productivity, this saying has some validity as it correctly emphasizes the importance of relationships and networks.