Outcome of yearly performance review doesn't match input
Discussion
Hi all,
This might be one of two threads, with the second about preparing my CV and profile for a new role.
In brief(!):
- I have been with an organisation for approx. 5 years.
- My formal job title and role has not changed, however...
-...in that time I've been asked to undertake a higher-level role with wildy higher accountabilities.
- Every single year - bar this - has seen an "outstanding" rating following our yearly review process.
- This year that rating is "*partially* hitting targets" despite probably better performance and stronger evidence than previous years.
- This differs to the review material I submitted where I demonstrated I was meeting or exceeding all targets.
- I have no clue what targets I am not hitting in full. Some informal/adhoc comments from my line manager, nothing written down.
It feels like either a hatchet job, or my face doesn't fit anymore. Either way this will cost me thousands come bonus time in the summer.
I am torn on this between shrugging it off and simply leaving, or instead being noisy and making trouble - and then leaving.
My logic is this:
- My role hasn't formally changed.
- There is no evidence of what targets I haven't met.
- *Something*. Grievance? Constructive dismissal?
Have you experienced similar?
How's my logic?
Thank you.
This might be one of two threads, with the second about preparing my CV and profile for a new role.
In brief(!):
- I have been with an organisation for approx. 5 years.
- My formal job title and role has not changed, however...
-...in that time I've been asked to undertake a higher-level role with wildy higher accountabilities.
- Every single year - bar this - has seen an "outstanding" rating following our yearly review process.
- This year that rating is "*partially* hitting targets" despite probably better performance and stronger evidence than previous years.
- This differs to the review material I submitted where I demonstrated I was meeting or exceeding all targets.
- I have no clue what targets I am not hitting in full. Some informal/adhoc comments from my line manager, nothing written down.
It feels like either a hatchet job, or my face doesn't fit anymore. Either way this will cost me thousands come bonus time in the summer.
I am torn on this between shrugging it off and simply leaving, or instead being noisy and making trouble - and then leaving.
My logic is this:
- My role hasn't formally changed.
- There is no evidence of what targets I haven't met.
- *Something*. Grievance? Constructive dismissal?
Have you experienced similar?
How's my logic?
Thank you.
Ask for an explanation first of why the rating has been given.
It may be that while you have hit any financial or numerical targets, you haven’t hit more non-descript ones e.g. any CPD for the role.
Whole load of things they could mark you down for. This is speaking as someone who initially got downgraded due to not coming in to the office enough and joining in. I pointed out I wasn’t measured on my talkativeness, and the rating was upgraded.
The s**t they pull.
It may be that while you have hit any financial or numerical targets, you haven’t hit more non-descript ones e.g. any CPD for the role.
Whole load of things they could mark you down for. This is speaking as someone who initially got downgraded due to not coming in to the office enough and joining in. I pointed out I wasn’t measured on my talkativeness, and the rating was upgraded.
The s**t they pull.
hepy said:
Ask for an explanation first of why the rating has been given.
It may be that while you have hit any financial or numerical targets, you haven’t hit more non-descript ones e.g. any CPD for the role.
Whole load of things they could mark you down for. This is speaking as someone who initially got downgraded due to not coming in to the office enough and joining in. I pointed out I wasn’t measured on my talkativeness, and the rating was upgraded.
The s**t they pull.
I do plan to ask for the reasons/gaps in writing. It may be that while you have hit any financial or numerical targets, you haven’t hit more non-descript ones e.g. any CPD for the role.
Whole load of things they could mark you down for. This is speaking as someone who initially got downgraded due to not coming in to the office enough and joining in. I pointed out I wasn’t measured on my talkativeness, and the rating was upgraded.
The s**t they pull.
What is CPD - continual performance development?
I’d suggest if a target isn’t SMART, written down and agreed, well then it’s not a target.
Puzzles said:
sounds like classic creep, you have a more senior position you are being benchmarked against but without the pay
I suspect so. I’m not unhappy to be targeted on the senior position, but I feel they don’t get to decide the performance criteria at the end of the process rather than the start.
Hammersia said:
Nuclear option is to resign of course in the expectation that they may revise their appraisal, pay rise, bonus etc.
Depends who's holding the cards really.
I must leave either way. This is not the first issue in terms of basic human respect. Depends who's holding the cards really.
People are simply not valued at this organisation. That isn’t an emotional statement, it’s objective.
They have all the cards so any threat will be shrugged off with a “computer says no” type attitude.
My route here I think is using our own procedures.
six wheels said:
I must leave either way. This is not the first issue in terms of basic human respect.
People are simply not valued at this organisation. That isn’t an emotional statement, it’s objective.
They have all the cards so any threat will be shrugged off with a “computer says no” type attitude.
My route here I think is using our own procedures.
Just playing Devil's Avocado for a minute - in 5 previous years you have been rated as Outstanding and (I assume) your bonuses reflected this. You have also been promoted and (again I assume) you've had a salary uplift in recognition of this. That doesn't sound lthey don't value you.People are simply not valued at this organisation. That isn’t an emotional statement, it’s objective.
They have all the cards so any threat will be shrugged off with a “computer says no” type attitude.
My route here I think is using our own procedures.
In terms of target setting - were SMART targets set when you achieved "outstanding"? Has that changed this year?
Corporate world!! I had this in 2015, part of a large team that I was in the top 2 for budgets, delivery, mentoring etc. Line manager's 1st question on my review "What do you think you could have done better?" I resigned there and then gave them 3 months notice, never went back to corporate again.
Countdown said:
Just playing Devil's Avocado for a minute - in 5 previous years you have been rated as Outstanding and (I assume) your bonuses reflected this. You have also been promoted and (again I assume) you've had a salary uplift in recognition of this. That doesn't sound lthey don't value you.
In terms of target setting - were SMART targets set when you achieved "outstanding"? Has that changed this year?
Thank you for your response and fair challenge. In terms of target setting - were SMART targets set when you achieved "outstanding"? Has that changed this year?
- '5 previous years you have been rated as Outstanding and (I assume) your bonuses reflected this = correct, they did.
- You have also been promoted and (again I assume) you've had a salary uplift in recognition of this = incorrect. Informal promotion, not official and no commensurate pay increase*.
- I realise this marks me out as a bit of a mug. Frankly the bonuses - and knowing the people value thing isn't there - I'd either given up fighting it or let it go.
To now play the Devil's flamingo, I will concede my immediate LM does value me and is an advocate.
The quality and SMARTness of target setting, and the evidence to support the achievement of those targets, has not changed.
Pedro25 said:
Corporate world!! I had this in 2015, part of a large team that I was in the top 2 for budgets, delivery, mentoring etc. Line manager's 1st question on my review "What do you think you could have done better?" I resigned there and then gave them 3 months notice, never went back to corporate again.
Fair play to you!I'd love to do that but I'm not fast enough or ballsy enough.
I'm the person who will think of that later, never at the time.
six wheels said:
Hi all,
This might be one of two threads, with the second about preparing my CV and profile for a new role.
In brief(!):
- I have been with an organisation for approx. 5 years.
- My formal job title and role has not changed, however...
-...in that time I've been asked to undertake a higher-level role with wildy higher accountabilities.
- Every single year - bar this - has seen an "outstanding" rating following our yearly review process.
- This year that rating is "*partially* hitting targets" despite probably better performance and stronger evidence than previous years.
- This differs to the review material I submitted where I demonstrated I was meeting or exceeding all targets.
- I have no clue what targets I am not hitting in full. Some informal/adhoc comments from my line manager, nothing written down.
It feels like either a hatchet job, or my face doesn't fit anymore. Either way this will cost me thousands come bonus time in the summer.
I am torn on this between shrugging it off and simply leaving, or instead being noisy and making trouble - and then leaving.
My logic is this:
- My role hasn't formally changed.
- There is no evidence of what targets I haven't met.
- *Something*. Grievance? Constructive dismissal?
Have you experienced similar?
How's my logic?
Thank you.
It's certainly not constructive dismissal or a grievance issue. The idea that you are going down that thought process purely because you have not recieved an 'oustanding' rating is a bit of a red flag if I am honest. You also talk about your determination to leave and I wonder if this is all visible in your day to day performance?This might be one of two threads, with the second about preparing my CV and profile for a new role.
In brief(!):
- I have been with an organisation for approx. 5 years.
- My formal job title and role has not changed, however...
-...in that time I've been asked to undertake a higher-level role with wildy higher accountabilities.
- Every single year - bar this - has seen an "outstanding" rating following our yearly review process.
- This year that rating is "*partially* hitting targets" despite probably better performance and stronger evidence than previous years.
- This differs to the review material I submitted where I demonstrated I was meeting or exceeding all targets.
- I have no clue what targets I am not hitting in full. Some informal/adhoc comments from my line manager, nothing written down.
It feels like either a hatchet job, or my face doesn't fit anymore. Either way this will cost me thousands come bonus time in the summer.
I am torn on this between shrugging it off and simply leaving, or instead being noisy and making trouble - and then leaving.
My logic is this:
- My role hasn't formally changed.
- There is no evidence of what targets I haven't met.
- *Something*. Grievance? Constructive dismissal?
Have you experienced similar?
How's my logic?
Thank you.
Organisations are usually trying to assess individual performance based on individual capability, not just the role. So the fact that you are a high performer and have presumably been rewarded as such is likely to set high expectations.
The bottom line is that no annual review process is going to achieve anything if the employee doesn't understand the rating. The obvious way forward is to speak to your boss and ask what you need to do to be outstanding.
Elysium said:
It's certainly not constructive dismissal or a grievance issue.
OK, fair. I've re-read my post and regret that line. Elysium said:
The idea that you are going down that thought process purely because you have not recieved an 'oustanding' rating is a bit of a red flag if I am honest.
That's not quite right. If they can demonstrate where the gaps are, my mindset might change. This is the other side of the SMART coin - "show me the measurement by which this target was missed". If they can't show me that = red flag.
Elysium said:
You also talk about your determination to leave and I wonder if this is all visible in your day to day performance?
Also fair. Food for thought. Elysium said:
The bottom line is that no annual review process is going to achieve anything if the employee doesn't understand the rating. The obvious way forward is to speak to your boss and ask what you need to do to be outstanding.
Keeps coming back to that same point and is strengthening my resolve. I need to understand those specific gaps. Your reply stung a bit - red flag - but is helpful, so thank you.
six wheels said:
Countdown said:
Just playing Devil's Avocado for a minute - in 5 previous years you have been rated as Outstanding and (I assume) your bonuses reflected this. You have also been promoted and (again I assume) you've had a salary uplift in recognition of this. That doesn't sound lthey don't value you.
In terms of target setting - were SMART targets set when you achieved "outstanding"? Has that changed this year?
Thank you for your response and fair challenge. In terms of target setting - were SMART targets set when you achieved "outstanding"? Has that changed this year?
- '5 previous years you have been rated as Outstanding and (I assume) your bonuses reflected this = correct, they did.
- You have also been promoted and (again I assume) you've had a salary uplift in recognition of this = incorrect. Informal promotion, not official and no commensurate pay increase*.
- I realise this marks me out as a bit of a mug. Frankly the bonuses - and knowing the people value thing isn't there - I'd either given up fighting it or let it go.
The quality and SMARTness of target setting, and the evidence to support the achievement of those targets, has not changed.
If the target setting process hasn't changed, and it worked appropriately before, I wonder why it's not working now?
Countdown said:
Thanks for clarifying. FWIW I don't think you're a mug for not insisting on a pay rise for an informal promotion; Ive done it 3 times because either (a) It puts you in pole position when you apply for the permanent role or (b) It strengthens your CV as potential Employers cans ee you have experience of working at a higher level.
If the target setting process hasn't changed, and it worked appropriately before, I wonder why it's not working now?
That is worth something, so thank you. If the target setting process hasn't changed, and it worked appropriately before, I wonder why it's not working now?
Yes. Formalised or not, the role changes will help my future career.
As to the reasoning, I think it's a bit of this:
Olivera said:
Forced bell curve distribution, aka inter-ranking.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff