Ever changing review process

LegacyUser

Hello all,

My employer has what I consider to be a very odd performance review process, which I think may be of dubious legality.

It is based around a custom built web application. What happens is that every three months your line manager will choose 6 rating criteria from a bank of 30. Examples of such criteria are obvious ones such as: punctuality, attendance, quality of work, initiative, teamwork, desire to learn new skills. Plus there are loads of stranger ones such as: amount of overtime given to company, attitude to stakeholders, desire to be seen as potential director candidate, willingness to absorb company values, dress sense (there is no company dress code), happiness, telephone manner, attendance/attitude at social events.

The way the system was developed was that the first 6 criteria chosen would stay the same for the duration of the employees job. However, a bug meant they had to be chosen at each review. The MD liked this and ordered that it not be fixed. Each criteria is rated 1 (best) to 4 (worst). The overall score is the average rounded up or down so 2.4 = 2 and 2.5 = 3. Get a 3 and you would have to embark on an improvement programme, get a 4 and you would get a formal written warning.

I had problems with this system as it lacked consistency. I told HR that I wanted to be judged on the same criteria each review as I felt it was unfair to allow the reviewer to pick and choose the criteria as it introduced an unacceptable level of subjectiveness. After much arguing and they agreed, but ordered me not to tell other employees.

I have now be asked to modify the system (I'm a developer), the company now wants any average score above 2 to be changed to a 4. So 2.000000001 would become a 4. This change has not and will not be communicated to any staff members bar me and the board. I am uncomfortable with making this change as I feel (for me at least) it is a fundamental change to my contract terms that I should be asked to agree to. For other staff members it would look like they have suffered a massive drop in performance and they would think it was their own fault, unaware the review criteria has changed.

It's worth noting that the review process is not documented in any employment contract or in any employee handbook. It was largely developed ad-hoc over time.

I'm unsure what to do. I'll make the change, but if I tell other employees would I be in the right legally? Also, in general what do you make of this review process. does it seem questionable to you?

ongarboy

Wow, it sounds like what is going on is quite unethical. The fact they said they'd doctor the system for you but not to tell anyone is a concern. If they manipulated it for you, who else is getting preferential or worse, discriminatory treatment?

The whole logic of the module stinks tbh. In my experience of appraisal systems, (3 in total across 3 companies), they have been consistent in that you have to list your performance against core overall competency benchmarks (performance in the context of the client/customer, context of the organisation, context of your department and finally of yourself).

Your module implies your entire performance could be based on subjective benchmarks (eg a boss who had it in for you could decide to pick the 6 options that he/she knows you are weakest and that would be the only options that represent you on this application). As regards telling others, I'd tread carefully on that one. Does your company have a confidentiality or "Need to Know" policy. As much as you may disagree with what's going on, you could be disciplined if you breached such a policy.

I know beggars can't be choosers in these tough times, but a company that seems to stand over such dodgy practices is not one I'd like to have a long career with. Most companies are not like this - consider your career options - developers are always in demand - particularly in financial services companies.

LegacyUser

ongarboy wrote: »

Wow, it sounds like what is going on is quite unethical. The fact they said they'd doctor the system for you but not to tell anyone is a concern. If they manipulated it for you, who else is getting preferential or worse, discriminatory treatment?

The whole logic of the module stinks tbh. In my experience of appraisal systems, (3 in total across 3 companies), they have been consistent in that you have to list your performance against core overall competency benchmarks (performance in the context of the client/customer, context of the organisation, context of your department and finally of yourself).

Your module implies your entire performance could be based on subjective benchmarks (eg a boss who had it in for you could decide to pick the 6 options that he/she knows you are weakest and that would be the only options that represent you on this application). As regards telling others, I'd tread carefully on that one. Does your company have a confidentiality or "Need to Know" policy. As much as you may disagree with what's going on, you could be disciplined if you breached such a policy.

I know beggars can't be choosers in these tough times, but a company that seems to stand over such dodgy practices is not one I'd like to have a long career with. Most companies are not like this - consider your career options - developers are always in demand - particularly in financial services companies.

I have no doubts that the system is used to keep people on their toes and to get rid of people who "don't fit in". Managers have admitted it to me.

They didn't make any code changes in the application just for me, my manager was instructed to always use the same criteria. This is because I had told them that I believed the ever changing criteria was legally questionable.They need me more than I need them as I've been there longer than any other developer. The firm is a logistics company and has a big in-house software development team.

I plan to be out of this job in a few months once I finish a big project that would look good on my CV.

tenifan

Your employer sounds like an asshole. Plain and simple. Also, I have no doubt in my mind that giving someone a "4" (resulting in a formal written warning) is nothing short of illegal as the score would be used to justify unfair dismissal, may contribute towards constructive dismissal, and if an employee's bonus depended on it it's outright fraudulent.

It wouldn't be good idea to say anything to other employees, because your employer will just deny everything and say you misunderstood his requirements.

Eoin

I'm not 100% sure it's as clear cut as that, though hopefully someone can post a link.

Disciplinary procedure guidelines are quite well documented and they must be followed. How performance is assessed to get to that stage is possibly a more of a grey area.

So the system might not be illegal in its own right, but disciplinary procedures arising from it might not hold up in court, if it came to it.

if I tell other employees would I be in the right legally?

If you're concerned, talk to an employment law expert. We can try and help with links to legislation etc, but not specifics like this.

InReality

I agreed with the other posters. How were they planning to explain the 2+ becoming a 4 though ? Do people just get a single result ?
Or Can people calculate their own score by averaging up the sub-criteria results ?

micosoft

ReviewProcess wrote: »

Hello all,

My employer has what I consider to be a very odd performance review process, which I think may be of dubious legality.

It is based around a custom built web application. What happens is that every three months your line manager will choose 6 rating criteria from a bank of 30. Examples of such criteria are obvious ones such as: punctuality, attendance, quality of work, initiative, teamwork, desire to learn new skills. Plus there are loads of stranger ones such as: amount of overtime given to company, attitude to stakeholders, desire to be seen as potential director candidate, willingness to absorb company values, dress sense (there is no company dress code), happiness, telephone manner, attendance/attitude at social events.

Seem like reasonable things with client/customer facing organisations... if you want to decide how a company should be run, go out and set one up.

ReviewProcess wrote: »

The way the system was developed was that the first 6 criteria chosen would stay the same for the duration of the employees job. However, a bug meant they had to be chosen at each review. The MD liked this and ordered that it not be fixed. Each criteria is rated 1 (best) to 4 (worst). The overall score is the average rounded up or down so 2.4 = 2 and 2.5 = 3. Get a 3 and you would have to embark on an improvement programme, get a 4 and you would get a formal written warning.


I had problems with this system as it lacked consistency. I told HR that I wanted to be judged on the same criteria each review as I felt it was unfair to allow the reviewer to pick and choose the criteria as it introduced an unacceptable level of subjectiveness. After much arguing and they agreed, but ordered me not to tell other employees.

Fine. You asked. Problem solved. That said, it's pretty normal for these things to change over time as organisational priorities change or problems are identified.

ReviewProcess wrote: »

I have now be asked to modify the system (I'm a developer), the company now wants any average score above 2 to be changed to a 4. So 2.000000001 would become a 4. This change has not and will not be communicated to any staff members bar me and the board. I am uncomfortable with making this change as I feel (for me at least) it is a fundamental change to my contract terms that I should be asked to agree to. For other staff members it would look like they have suffered a massive drop in performance and they would think it was their own fault, unaware the review criteria has changed.

It does happen particularly when managers give too high (or in this case too low a rating). I suspect there has been a serious conversation at management level - you simply have not been included.

ReviewProcess wrote: »

It's worth noting that the review process is not documented in any employment contract or in any employee handbook. It was largely developed ad-hoc over time.

I'm unsure what to do. I'll make the change, but if I tell other employees would I be in the right legally? Also, in general what do you make of this review process. does it seem questionable to you?

If you tell confidential information to other employees you leave yourself open to a breach of confidence. If your role involves access to confidential information they could move to dismiss you (contrary to popular opinion employers are not required to go through every warning - actions serious enough can warrant immediate dismissal). Breach of confidence is at the higher end of the scale and you won't get much support for it - you've no right to decide to release this information regardless of your personal opinion.

Whether or not the review process is questionable (and we are not getting all the information here) is not really the point. Organisations are entitled to decide how they performance manage their staff. If you don't like it, go to the union, form a union or leave. Them's your options.

blindsider

Micosoft - interesting to hear an employer's opinions.

However, I suspect the OP was not looking for that.

Performance Management systems must be fair. This, on the info given, seems to be unfair. I would have issues with that.

However, the situation is far too complex to be dealt with here, and I suggest the OP seeks further advice e.g. solicitor or CI.

Whether or not the review process is questionable (and we are not getting all the information here) is not really the point. Organisations are entitled to decide how they performance manage their staff. If you don't like it, go to the union, form a union or leave. Them's your options.[Quote/]

I can't remember who said: "Treat your staff like you want them to treat your most important customer."

I think it's good advice.

micosoft

blindsider wrote: »

Micosoft - interesting to hear an employer's opinions.

However, I suspect the OP was not looking for that.

Performance Management systems must be fair. This, on the info given, seems to be unfair. I would have issues with that.

However, the situation is far too complex to be dealt with here, and I suggest the OP seeks further advice e.g. solicitor or CI.

"Whether or not the review process is questionable (and we are not getting all the information here) is not really the point. Organisations are entitled to decide how they performance manage their staff. If you don't like it, go to the union, form a union or leave. Them's your options."

I can't remember who said: "Treat your staff like you want them to treat your most important customer."

I think it's good advice.

Actually I answered the question the OP asked....what is the OP going to ask a solicitor pray tell? Can I reveal confidential information? It's not as if the revision directly affects him as OP has not implied they are on a >2.

I attempted to provide some form of insight rather then the automatic "don't know the facts here, not even really read the question, but employers bad, immediately go to a solicitor". Of course the OP may want to hear that, but it's still bad advice.

wmpdd3

the only thing I can say is all performance related issues should be documented, can a hard copy be printed off?

I am aware of a case where all performance reviews for the last 6 years had to be available to the court, these were hand written and used the same criteria for all managers. I can't see how your company could comply with this if the issue was to arise

LegacyUser

micosoft wrote: »

you've no right to decide to release this information regardless of your personal opinion.

Whether or not the review process is questionable (and we are not getting all the information here) is not really the point. Organisations are entitled to decide how they performance manage their staff. If you don't like it, go to the union, form a union or leave. Them's your options.

I beg to differ, as far as I am concerned an employee review process should be well documented and consistent. This process is not documented and certainly not consistent. The first I found out about it was at my first review where my manager gave me my score and told me how it was calculated. I had no input to the review.

When I queried this with HR and they agreed to always use the same criteria for me is an indication, to me, that they knew the process had problems. Plus, that they asked me not to tell anyone might have been an indication that they were afraid other employees might take the issue further. I know of one employee who stormed out in a cloud of effs and cees because he thought the the review process was unfair.

Every other job I have been in had a very clearly defined review process with the same criteria used each time. I now find myself in something of an awkward process and I'm not sure what to do next. To be honest people are going to notice that they are now getting 4s instead of 2s or 3s so maybe I need do nothing.

Eoin

ReviewProcess wrote: »

I beg to differ, as far as I am concerned an employee review process should be well documented and consistent. This process is not documented and certainly not consistent.

I don't disagree with that; but I think your main question was is if it's within your remit to tell other people. My opinion is that it is not, no matter how crappy the system is.

If you have concerns about the legality of what they're asking you to do, then get confirmation from them by email.

gozunda

ReviewProcess wrote: »

I beg to differ, as far as I am concerned an employee review process should be well documented and consistent. This process is not documented and certainly not consistent. The first I found out about it was at my first review where my manager gave me my score and told me how it was calculated. I had no input to the review.

When I queried this with HR and they agreed to always use the same criteria for me is an indication, to me, that they knew the process had problems. Plus, that they asked me not to tell anyone might have been an indication that they were afraid other employees might take the issue further. I know of one employee who stormed out in a cloud of effs and cees because he thought the the review process was unfair.

Every other job I have been in had a very clearly defined review process with the same criteria used each time. I now find myself in something of an awkward process and I'm not sure what to do next. To be honest people are going to notice that they are now getting 4s instead of 2s or 3s so maybe I need do nothing.

OP - I would be very concerned as to your knowledge of this matter and possible repercussions were this matter referred to the Labour Court at a future point.

The use of such clearly unthetical and rigged mechanisms to manage employees out the door is more than likley to come to light when employees start to compare notes. The management through bringing you into the process of loading the evaluation against employees performance scores could very well put you in a position as a scapegoat. The company have already demonstrated clearly unethical behaviour so I believe you would be justified to be very wary of becoming involved in what is effectively a scam.

Definitely seek professional and independent advice on this matter .