Outcome of yearly performance review doesn't match input
Discussion
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.
Hatchet job, speaking from experience. 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.
My boss at a major consultancy wanted rid of me, but I got rave reviews from my client, my team and the partner I was working for, which really pissed him off.
So he went and got some reviews from some of his tame staff for a project I'd been on a year previous. Factually inaccurate and easily disprovable, but they were basically promised a promotion, so wrote what he wanted. HR didn't want any aggro so didn't want me to appeal it.
Took the pay off instead as, even if I'd won, he would have done the same next time.
You can't beat a senior in a review process, they have all the cards.
I've witnessed with friends & family that the HR teams in most businesses are ineffective & want a quiet life. OP, you've had some good advice generally but I'd agree with others that you'd be best to start looking for another job just in case things don't improve. HR (otherwise known as the Human Remains or Hardly Revenant dept. by some of my friends) are often so ineffective that unless you have a whistle-blower status then you are unable to realistically be able to defend yourself if a group of colleagues have colluded with your line manager to question your performance (this may not of course be the case in this instance) in return for their own personal benefit.
If you say your immediate line manager is not the issue then have an open but calm conversation with them to see if they can give any real indication as to why you're being marked down on performance? IMO all performance targets where you have a bonus remuneration should be in writing & you should have regular formal appraisals to allow you & the employer to check how things are going.
Good luck & if you decide to leave as it's often the best thing in the long run
If you say your immediate line manager is not the issue then have an open but calm conversation with them to see if they can give any real indication as to why you're being marked down on performance? IMO all performance targets where you have a bonus remuneration should be in writing & you should have regular formal appraisals to allow you & the employer to check how things are going.
Good luck & if you decide to leave as it's often the best thing in the long run
More information is needed. You say you have had an outstanding rating for the past few years and now have a partially meeting rating. This sounds like a rather significant change as there is probably at last a meeting targets and exceeding targets rating between partial and outstanding.
What is the rating scale?
Have you got a new manager?
Has there been any indication throughout the year of performance not meeting requirements?
How often have you had a discussion with your manager in the last year about performance against targets?
What is the rating scale?
Have you got a new manager?
Has there been any indication throughout the year of performance not meeting requirements?
How often have you had a discussion with your manager in the last year about performance against targets?
For many organisations, it’s a box ticking exercise.
Had mine last week. Manager starts waffling, so I asked simply “ have I got a pay rise”. (I knew the answer already). Was confirmed as “no”, so we ended the pointless review and talked about something else.
For me it’s irrelevant, my earnings are mostly dictated by what I do and I have no career aspirations.
It was just a matter of principle.
The question you need to ask is, what outcome do you desire?
Your actions should then reflect this.
Had mine last week. Manager starts waffling, so I asked simply “ have I got a pay rise”. (I knew the answer already). Was confirmed as “no”, so we ended the pointless review and talked about something else.
For me it’s irrelevant, my earnings are mostly dictated by what I do and I have no career aspirations.
It was just a matter of principle.
The question you need to ask is, what outcome do you desire?
Your actions should then reflect this.
The outcome of an annual review should never be a surprise to the employee. If your manager is actually managing you ... aka doing their bleeding job ... they'll be discussing progress throughout the year so you know where you stand at all times w.r.t. their expectations and so they can help you to improve continuously. Unless you are absolutely hopeless at accepting feedback, an annual review that comes as an unpleasant surprise is an indication of a serious managerial fail. You might think HR would use "was your annual review a surprise?" as a simple metric of manager performance. But that would require a proactive HR dept and they are few and far between, sadly. Good HR depts provide a significant competitive advantage in my experience.
One of the dumbest things I've seen done is to apply misleading labels to the bands under the much loved bell curve. If the rules of the game are that the top quartile get the big bonus, the second quartile get a fiver and the rest can f
k off, well then just tell people "sorry, you did really well, but you're in a really high-performing team and in that group you only made the second quartile." I.e. be honest. The system is a bit st, not you. Don't label the second quartile "could do better" or "missed some targets". That just adds insult to injury.
One of the dumbest things I've seen done is to apply misleading labels to the bands under the much loved bell curve. If the rules of the game are that the top quartile get the big bonus, the second quartile get a fiver and the rest can f
k off, well then just tell people "sorry, you did really well, but you're in a really high-performing team and in that group you only made the second quartile." I.e. be honest. The system is a bit st, not you. Don't label the second quartile "could do better" or "missed some targets". That just adds insult to injury.six wheels said:
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.
ATG said:
The outcome of an annual review should never be a surprise to the employee. If your manager is actually managing you ... aka doing their bleeding job ... they'll be discussing progress throughout the year so you know where you stand at all times w.r.t. their expectations and so they can help you to improve continuously. Unless you are absolutely hopeless at accepting feedback, an annual review that comes as an unpleasant surprise is an indication of a serious managerial fail. You might think HR would use "was your annual review a surprise?" as a simple metric of manager performance. But that would require a proactive HR dept and they are few and far between, sadly. Good HR depts provide a significant competitive advantage in my experience.
One of the dumbest things I've seen done is to apply misleading labels to the bands under the much loved bell curve. If the rules of the game are that the top quartile get the big bonus, the second quartile get a fiver and the rest can fk off, well then just tell people "sorry, you did really well, but you're in a really high-performing team and in that group you only made the second quartile." I.e. be honest. The system is a bit st, not you. Don't label the second quartile "could do better" or "missed some targets". That just adds insult to injury.
The annual review should not be a surprise providing the goalposts remain the same throught the year and a forced distribution is not applied at the end of the year. One of the dumbest things I've seen done is to apply misleading labels to the bands under the much loved bell curve. If the rules of the game are that the top quartile get the big bonus, the second quartile get a fiver and the rest can f
k off, well then just tell people "sorry, you did really well, but you're in a really high-performing team and in that group you only made the second quartile." I.e. be honest. The system is a bit st, not you. Don't label the second quartile "could do better" or "missed some targets". That just adds insult to injury.ATG said:
The outcome of an annual review should never be a surprise to the employee. If your manager is actually managing you ... aka doing their bleeding job ... they'll be discussing progress throughout the year so you know where you stand at all times w.r.t. their expectations and so they can help you to improve continuously. Unless you are absolutely hopeless at accepting feedback, an annual review that comes as an unpleasant surprise is an indication of a serious managerial fail. You might think HR would use "was your annual review a surprise?" as a simple metric of manager performance. But that would require a proactive HR dept and they are few and far between, sadly. Good HR depts provide a significant competitive advantage in my experience.
One of the dumbest things I've seen done is to apply misleading labels to the bands under the much loved bell curve. If the rules of the game are that the top quartile get the big bonus, the second quartile get a fiver and the rest can fk off, well then just tell people "sorry, you did really well, but you're in a really high-performing team and in that group you only made the second quartile." I.e. be honest. The system is a bit st, not you. Don't label the second quartile "could do better" or "missed some targets". That just adds insult to injury.
Good post. One of the dumbest things I've seen done is to apply misleading labels to the bands under the much loved bell curve. If the rules of the game are that the top quartile get the big bonus, the second quartile get a fiver and the rest can f
k off, well then just tell people "sorry, you did really well, but you're in a really high-performing team and in that group you only made the second quartile." I.e. be honest. The system is a bit st, not you. Don't label the second quartile "could do better" or "missed some targets". That just adds insult to injury.Annual appraisals with rating scales belong in the 50s and they are made worse with some companies doing forced ranking etc.
The subject of performance management is a tough one for most companies. How to accurately message performance when so many jobs are not making widgets, how to measure performance through a manager who may themselves not be performing, how to deal with the vast majority of employees that think they are amazing when they are not, how to use such a process to try and identify your real talent in the organisation etc etc. The questions go on.
What we end up with generally is a box ticking exercise that everyone hates including the managers and HR and then they act surprised when the general workforce hate it.
For me what’s more important is at least monthly contact with each employee to talk about what’s going well, what isn’t, share feedback and to look forward. The feedback goes both ways as a manager or leader you should be asking them how you are doing and how you can improve. Any decision or end of year bonus then isn’t a surprise. It’s not helpful to put people into a box rating it’s only demoralising for those ranked low and means nothing to those ranked high until suddenly they are not.
What about talent management? Well if the box mechanism is not effective then it can’t be effective at highlighting the best talent and you will probably put your investment in the wrong place. Create your talent programme and then make it application only and backed with a rigorous assessment centre. It’s how most companies choose their grads but for some reason they don’t apply the same test to experienced talent.
The sooner organisations start focusing performance management on regular feedback, honesty, engagement and relationship building the better the results will be.
To the OP…. As I said above there are questions to be answered to give real advice here but aside from that you clearly need to ask why the rating is what it is and why you were not informed in enough time to do something about it.
Contrary to the advice above that this is a not a grievance issue you absolutely can raise a grievance about this but you must be able to show you have tried to resolve it informally first which is what the necessity to enquire about the reasons and awareness are about.
The subject of performance management is a tough one for most companies. How to accurately message performance when so many jobs are not making widgets, how to measure performance through a manager who may themselves not be performing, how to deal with the vast majority of employees that think they are amazing when they are not, how to use such a process to try and identify your real talent in the organisation etc etc. The questions go on.
What we end up with generally is a box ticking exercise that everyone hates including the managers and HR and then they act surprised when the general workforce hate it.
For me what’s more important is at least monthly contact with each employee to talk about what’s going well, what isn’t, share feedback and to look forward. The feedback goes both ways as a manager or leader you should be asking them how you are doing and how you can improve. Any decision or end of year bonus then isn’t a surprise. It’s not helpful to put people into a box rating it’s only demoralising for those ranked low and means nothing to those ranked high until suddenly they are not.
What about talent management? Well if the box mechanism is not effective then it can’t be effective at highlighting the best talent and you will probably put your investment in the wrong place. Create your talent programme and then make it application only and backed with a rigorous assessment centre. It’s how most companies choose their grads but for some reason they don’t apply the same test to experienced talent.
The sooner organisations start focusing performance management on regular feedback, honesty, engagement and relationship building the better the results will be.
To the OP…. As I said above there are questions to be answered to give real advice here but aside from that you clearly need to ask why the rating is what it is and why you were not informed in enough time to do something about it.
Contrary to the advice above that this is a not a grievance issue you absolutely can raise a grievance about this but you must be able to show you have tried to resolve it informally first which is what the necessity to enquire about the reasons and awareness are about.
Edited by craigjm on Saturday 18th March 10:39
At my company, the process is this
Start of Jan - you write your own review
Mid Jan - manager writes his review about you
End of Jan - clients write their review about you
Start of Feb - meeting to rank people (into three brackets - 10% promo candidate, 80% good performer, 10% performance management - all within gender)
Mid Feb - you get your annual review, manager feedback, client feedback, and ranking (but nothing else)
I've had a couple of people message me to complain that their ranking says that they are underperforming but all their reviews are good. One of those was actually paid to leave the company.
This means that managers have an incentive to not performance manage because then they can go into the ranking meetings with a few poor performers to give the directors some meat. The argument "I did my job by removing poor performers throughout the year" has a 50/50 chance of success, depending on how much the director wants to send it up the chain and claim an exemption.
Start of Jan - you write your own review
Mid Jan - manager writes his review about you
End of Jan - clients write their review about you
Start of Feb - meeting to rank people (into three brackets - 10% promo candidate, 80% good performer, 10% performance management - all within gender)
Mid Feb - you get your annual review, manager feedback, client feedback, and ranking (but nothing else)
I've had a couple of people message me to complain that their ranking says that they are underperforming but all their reviews are good. One of those was actually paid to leave the company.
This means that managers have an incentive to not performance manage because then they can go into the ranking meetings with a few poor performers to give the directors some meat. The argument "I did my job by removing poor performers throughout the year" has a 50/50 chance of success, depending on how much the director wants to send it up the chain and claim an exemption.
Olivera said:
Forced bell curve distribution, aka inter-ranking.
This was my first thought. When I was working I used to hate hearing from the main Board that the overall average needed to be x for a division and no one dept could average more than y. This was to avoid paying the higher levels of matrix based bonus’s.
Each manager wanted ( in most cases ) to do the best for their own teams and the arguments were something to behold.
Just before I get back to see if Wales can come back ( I doubt it ) one more thought.
A lot may depend on your Manager so worth chatting first just to express your unhappiness.
As the rating has already been given I doubt anything will come from this but it may be at least cathartic for you.
Don’t go nuclear and just resign in a fit of pique unless you have already secured a new job elsewhere.
Good luck.
A lot may depend on your Manager so worth chatting first just to express your unhappiness.
As the rating has already been given I doubt anything will come from this but it may be at least cathartic for you.
Don’t go nuclear and just resign in a fit of pique unless you have already secured a new job elsewhere.
Good luck.
If performance ranking is going to be used then I would prefer a percentage based system, say 10 attributes each marked out of 10. The calibration is only used to ensure managers apply the marking consistently and not move people between grades. At the end of the calibration process, percentages are locked and the 5 performance levels are then set using 4 values centred around the mid percentage using a pre-agreed formula and people then awarded grades accordingly. Removes most of the endless horse trading that goes on as you won't know the exact grade threshold values until the end of the process. It's more transparent as an employee will know how close they were to the higher ( or lower ) grade which gives you something to discuss on end of year 1-1 . The downside is that its more complicated to administer.
Edited by NikBartlett on Sunday 19th March 14:29
They don't want to promote you into the position you're now doing for them on lower pay.
Can't have year upon year of outstanding performance ratings, including where you're outperforming your role, and credibly do nothing about recognising your growth and performance.
So, middling performance review gives them ammo to identify yet more targets for you to hit.
Best move, OP, they're hoping they can string you along.
Have you got kids in local school, wife working locally, settled in a house etc? They'll often use that sort of info to weigh up whether you're likely to fk off somewhere else or stick with the st they keep spooning you.
Can't have year upon year of outstanding performance ratings, including where you're outperforming your role, and credibly do nothing about recognising your growth and performance.
So, middling performance review gives them ammo to identify yet more targets for you to hit.
Best move, OP, they're hoping they can string you along.
Have you got kids in local school, wife working locally, settled in a house etc? They'll often use that sort of info to weigh up whether you're likely to f
k off somewhere else or stick with the st they keep spooning you.Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff