[throwaway318]

Corporate HR, based on actual thinking unlike the Twitter author who seems based on ego. The reason for this is there's a lot embedded about what 'A', 'C', 'E' mean, and that's different for different people. Using specific terminology (somewhat) mitigates this.

'Average' is also 'Effective'. If the organisation's hiring most people at the right level, that's the way it should be, right?

[An organisational pat on the back that its employees are effective. And then whole business lines get cut, because they're not effective. But the employees are, correct? Blinkered into effectively obeying. That's different from the OP.]

Consistently getting 'exceptional' or 'outstanding' is a problem for your manager because it means they've hired you at the wrong level. Whether this is a problem for you depends on your manager.

It's not all in a name, it's how you think about it. That the author of the post deflates 'Effective' to 'C', which means overall able but lacking in in some areas, identifies something's off. Enough to make me run a mile from any association with this company.

Further, something wrong with the employee conversation. Given a job specification and reasonable leadership communication, having someone surprised means they've been working with the wrong goals, and that's leadership's problem. It happens, I've been there, and then you reverse it, however Tweeting it as a bragging point is lost on me as leadership communication.

[BobbyTables2]

Consistently getting 'exceptional' is actually a very easy problem to solve…

Just promote that person to a higher grade, with increased expectations (w.r.t. sphere of influence), but zero change to compensation or assigned tasks!

They will no longer receive exceptional ratings nor occupy a larger slice of the bonus pool. And the manager gets to “check the box” for fostering employe development.

Later, when that employee leaves for greener pastures, you get a free pass for the next round of layoffs!

[nlawalker]

> The reason for this is there's a lot embedded about what 'A', 'C', 'E' mean, and that's different for different people

100% agree - the expectation setting about promos and big bonuses only coming to those who exceed expectations is frankly fine, but it's obvious that the intent of the letter-grade analogy is to imply an expectation (and evoke the associated anxiety) that there's going to be a paternalistic, we're-disappointed-and-you-should-be-too discussion for a 'C'.