I totally disagree with the widespread thinking that a newish team member shouldn't get better than an IE unless they're a complete rock star. If that 6-month team member is, at the time we decide on review scores, performing at the same level as my veterans, you'd better believe I'm gonna fight for him to get the same score they do. I'm not going to say, "Well, you're an E today, but you weren't perfect on days one through four, so I'm gonna give you a lower review and thus a smaller raise, causing you to make less money for the rest of your entire Target career."
If it's someone who was bad for the first few months but turned it around right before review time, obviously that's an IE. But I've had to fight tooth and nail for people who were solid EXs from their fourth month on to not get an IE just because they were only 7 or 8 months in, when a TM with that same performance pattern but hired a few months earlier would have received at least an E and possibly an EX with no argument from HR. It's not their fault that they were hired in the middle of our review year, so how can we punish them for it? And it IS a punishment, giving them a review that reflects their performance during and shortly after their training period more heavily than their performance after they learned their job. We already GAVE them a review for that period, at 90 days. I'm not saying that period shouldn't be considered at all during the annual review, but it should definitely be only a small factor.
