Performance Related Pay

[FunkyGibbon]

I'm having a bit of battle at work ATM. Here's the story (apologies if it is bit long):

At our place we run a performance review scheme which runs the year from 1stOct to 30th Sept. You get given a grading based on your performance throughout that period (based on objectives, key performance indicators, competencies - the usual malarky). The grade you get is directly related to the percentage salary increase you will get.

Now, one of my staff has had an outstanding year (the top grade - no question). However, this person has recently gained "promotion" within the division a role to be formally filled next week (last week of our review period).

Management have said that this person should only get the cost of living rise as the outstanding performance has been rewarded by the "promotion".

Fair enough you might say, but the 2 jobs are un-related - this person could not have got the new job solely on how well they did the last one. The new job involved a full 2 day assesment centre (interviews, technical tests, persentations etc) so the job was won on merit.

In fact is not a "promotion" as such merely another job in the company that happens to be at a higher rate.

So I think they should be awarded the pay grade for the last review period based one how well they did then.

What say the PH massive?

TIA

FG

[Podie]

Harsh, but sounds all too familiar..

[Antwerpman]

If they are going to be in their existing job for a long period of time before taking over their new role then I agree they should enjoy the higher pay rise that their performance over the last year entitles them too.

However, as you yourself point out, the new job is completely seperate from the old one, it has its own value to the company and a starting salary (which is higher than their existing salary if I read things correctly). So why should they company give them a rise on their starting salary in the new role, that they have yet to prove themselves in?

I could understand your point if their existing salary + Performance increase was greater than their new salary, but if their new salary is higher than this then IMHO the company is in the right

[srebbe64]

What it comes down to is how much the company wants to retain the employment of the individual. If the person feels somewhat shafted by the company, and if they've got some fire in their belly, then he/she may well leave. So it becomes an own goal. As such, the issue is not one of of "policy", but one of "fairness" and "relationship". The thing that I always ask myself is "how would I feel if I were in their shoes?"

[T5-R]

I'm fairly certain that whoever did the interviews and assessing of candidates took past performance into account, even though the jobs are un-related.

Having been in that situation myself in the past, I always looked at how internal candidates performed in their past role(s). Even if they aced the interview process, but past performance reviews show they were lazy layabouts....sorry mate, don't want you in my team!

Given he got the job shows the company is rewarding him for past performance.

Just my 2p worth...

[jacko lah]

Podie said:

Harsh, but sounds all too familiar..

I've just accepted a Promotion where the rise is ONLY 8.7%, starting in Jan 2006. I won't be due another rise til Jan 2007. I would have expected 5% rise anyway (due to good performance) so I know the promotion is crap intitially. I should get a Bonus based on jan 2005 to Jan 2006 performance, but my Boss and my new boss have both insisted that

1) I'm at the Top of the virtual scale for what I do now.
2) I'll be at the bottom of the Scale for the job I'm going to do.
3) At the Level of the new Job the Max Bonus is 20% and typical ones are 10 to 15%. On the Old one the Max was 10%.
4) I have to trust them.

The way I see it is : If I work my balls off they might find a way to screw me come Jan 2007, but hey I'm got the new Job Title on the CV and if they want to piss me off I'm happy to call thier bluff.

For your Man ? TOUGH shit but Screw him twice and he'll be off !!!

[FunkyGibbon]

All fair points thanks. I'm coming round to the fact that the company is being fair in this now.

Problem is that is not the perception people have - so that's now my problem as a manager to explain it how it is.

Once again - thanks.

FG