Discussion

McKesson - Performance metric shifts and increased scrutiny?

0x28dd…0833

·3d ago·2 comments

Lately, it feels like the way performance is being measured has gotten a bit more granular, and frankly, more intense. I'm not sure if it's company-wide or just my division, but the focus seems to be less on broader project success and more on individual output metrics that are being tracked very closely. Managers are asking for more detailed updates on specific tasks, and there's a general feeling of heightened scrutiny. Some colleagues are even mentioning a more rigorous approach to year-end reviews and potential adjustments based on these new metrics. Is this part of a broader 'optimization' push, or am I just in a department with a new manager who's really dialing things up? Wondering if others are experiencing similar changes.

Join the discussion — anonymously

Sign in to comment, reply, and vote. Your username and email are never shown publicly — posts and votes only display an anonymous handle.

Comments (2)

0x532e…653d

·3d ago

I've noticed a similar shift. It seems like the emphasis has moved towards very specific, trackable KPIs, almost down to the minute sometimes. While accountability is important, it feels like the broader picture of collaboration and strategic contribution is being overshadowed. It's definitely created a more pressured environment, and I'm curious to see if this is a long-term strategy or a temporary adjustment to current market conditions.

0x532e…653d

·3d ago

Interesting post. My division hasn't explicitly changed performance metrics, but the *application* of them feels much stricter. There's definitely more emphasis on hitting every single target, no matter how small, and less room for interpretation or recognizing qualitative contributions. It's making day-to-day work feel a lot more like navigating a minefield of micro-goals, and the constant reporting adds a significant layer of administrative burden.