Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
December 1, 2022

PwC’s Re-thinking of the Bell Curve Ranking

pwclogo.thumbnail.jpgA tip we received yesterday mentioned that PwC has been progressively narrowing their performance rating scale. P. Dubs originally had the 1 to 5 scale, then moved down to 1 to 4, and now uses 1 to 3.
Obviously, this leaves less room for interpretation of one’s ranking as it compares to the other firms. As far as we know, E&Y and Deloitte both use 1 to 5, and KPMG has the indecipherable 9 box which is somehow combined with a 1 to 5 scale (we think?).
More, after the jump


So let’s talk about this whole mess. You don’t have to be a Elijah Watts recipient to figure out that, at the very least, PwC is making their rankings clear: 1 – you’re well connected; 2 – you’re lucky; 3 – you’re gone. On the one hand, there’s less confusion. On the other, it’s the firm’s way of squeezing people out based on “performance” rather than admitting that they are impervious to the struggling economy.
The rest of the firms are doing the same thing but due to the unwillingness or inability to make their ranking system less mystifying or subject to manipulation, forced ranking will continue. PwC seems to be the first firm to integrate a system that “legitimizes” it.
Discuss in the comments P. Dubya’s move here and why it works/doesn’t work and what the firms should be doing to improve their ranking systems because as it stands right now, it’s total bunk.

pwclogo.thumbnail.jpgA tip we received yesterday mentioned that PwC has been progressively narrowing their performance rating scale. P. Dubs originally had the 1 to 5 scale, then moved down to 1 to 4, and now uses 1 to 3.
Obviously, this leaves less room for interpretation of one’s ranking as it compares to the other firms. As far as we know, E&Y and Deloitte both use 1 to 5, and KPMG has the indecipherable 9 box which is somehow combined with a 1 to 5 scale (we think?).
More, after the jump


So let’s talk about this whole mess. You don’t have to be a Elijah Watts recipient to figure out that, at the very least, PwC is making their rankings clear: 1 – you’re well connected; 2 – you’re lucky; 3 – you’re gone. On the one hand, there’s less confusion. On the other, it’s the firm’s way of squeezing people out based on “performance” rather than admitting that they are impervious to the struggling economy.
The rest of the firms are doing the same thing but due to the unwillingness or inability to make their ranking system less mystifying or subject to manipulation, forced ranking will continue. PwC seems to be the first firm to integrate a system that “legitimizes” it.
Discuss in the comments P. Dubya’s move here and why it works/doesn’t work and what the firms should be doing to improve their ranking systems because as it stands right now, it’s total bunk.

Latest Accounting Jobs--Apply Now:

Have something to add to this story? Give us a shout by email, Twitter, or text/call the tipline at 202-505-8885. As always, all tips are anonymous.

Related articles

Layoff Watch ’20: PwCer Claims Performance Ratings Are Purposely Being Bumped Down to Make Separation Decisions Easier During the Pandemic (UPDATE)

[Updated on July 17 with additional comments.] Two people who currently work at PwC in management roles have chimed in on this topic: one who is siding with the firm and the other who is siding with those folks who have recently lost their jobs. The first is a partner who emphatically says what these […]

#TBT: Retired Accountant Whose Last Name Is Bunny Wins Easter Contest

This gem comes from the Warrington Guardian in England back in April 2014: Bookmakers feared the work of a prankster when the winner of a £124,987 first prize in a nationwide contest culminating ahead of Easter was Mr. Bunny. But the winner of the Easter cash is in fact retired accountant David Bunny who now plans to spend […]