Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

PwC’s Re-thinking of the Bell Curve Ranking

Posted on by Caleb Newquist

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.

Related Posts

PCAOB: The Rodney Dangerfield of Bureaucracies

pcaob.gif It’s tough being part of a bureaucracy, especially if you’re doing something as glamarous as babysitting auditors. The CIA, FBI, NSA have got it easy. You get to catch bad guys, use guns, and Hollywood makes movies about you. Aside from the warrantless wiretaps and otherwise general big brotherishness, it’s cool.
The PCAOB doesn’t get that luxury. They get to poke around auditors’ work and then tell them how much they suck at it. Not so fun for anybody. They also get to write auditing standards. Take the watchdog aspect, multiply it times infinity, and that’s about the amount fun we’re talking about for writing rules on auditing.
But now people are saying they’re too slow in writing these I-already-want-to-kill-myself boring rules? Yep:

“Given how little they’ve accomplished in the standards-setting area, they don’t get a passing grade,” says Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant for the SEC.
Turner says he and a group of investor advocates wrote to the PCAOB in 2004, asking it to improve fraud standards. But the work remains undone, he says.
Bill Gradison, the board member whose term expires in October, calls the criticism fair. “We’ve been much slower than other standards writers,” he says.
By comparison, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, which sets international auditing standards, among other duties, finished revising its own standards in March. The process, which included 37 standards, took about five years

Man, now comparisons to the Europeans. They’re looking for some new blood at the PCAOB though, since Mark Olson is retiring as Chairman and another board member’s term is expiring.
But don’t you go calling them lazy! “the PCAOB is taken seriously by the auditing community and deserves credit for trying. ‘Anyone who says it isn’t is off the wall,'”
What a ringing endorsement.

COMPLIANCE WATCH: Oversight Board Sets Sluggish Pace [WSJ]

Footnotes: Can I Get That in $20s?; Picking a Niche; A Tacky KPMG Party | 09.29.14

The secret to being a good manager is to get your hands dirty [HBR] The […]

About to Get Canned? Depends on Your Response

With all the uncertainty out there, for the first time, number crunchers are walking on eggshells, because, you know, if anyone gets the hint that you’re not busy enough, before you realize it you’re turning in your badge and corporate card with $500 of still unexplained expenses on it.
Here at Going Concern, we’re looking out for you, so that’s why we’re going to lay out some indicators for you so you can tell if you are about to get axed or if you should just buckle down and call for take out because your ass isn’t going anywhere.
Here are some common responses to the awkward icebreaker that is common around most offices, “You busy these days?”:
• “Ugh, you know how it is” – You’re safe. Maybe it’s the bags under your eyes, your shirt being on inside out, or maybe you just reek of tequila because you spent the four hours prior to returning to work reliving your days at Tappa Megga Kegga. Unless you plan on going postal at the office, you’re not going anywhere.
• “Oh pretty busy” – Watch yourself and lay low. You’ve got stuff to work on but not enough to keep you at the office past 6 pm. Every once in awhile you’ll stay late and catch up on your Netflix queue in order for it to look like you’re not leaving GASP too early.
• “I’m working on a project for HR” – Dust of the resume. The only reason they’re keeping you around is to bide time until judgment day when the rest of the people are going down with you.
Rumor around the campfire is that some of the firms are billing far fewer hours than are budgeted which could spur some additional cuts so watch out for responses similar to the ones above. The bloodbath may not be over yet.