To not have input to my teams salary review

[BlackYellowBlue]

Salary reviews have been completed for my team. Consultation ws carried out with my line manager so one removed from my team.

Apparently the reason was to streamline the process. Am I being unreasonable to think this is crap given that I mentor, carry out performance reviews and deal with everything else a line manager does. I work closely with my team on a daily basis so I know their performance well.

Often companies do this to avoid bias and favouritism. My company does, I personally think it’s the right thing. All appraisals also have to be signed off by one up to ensure the same thing.

This if often done due to bias, but if a manager wants to argue that the decision is incorrect then it's up to them to challenge the decisions.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is crap. Perhaps there were indeed too many layers and too many discussions so it needed streamlining.

I have managed managers and at times have had people several levels below me, I am still familiar enough with their performance because I get feedback informally and formally on all team members.

To avoid bias sounds like a credible reason. However my own line manager completed my salary review. So if that is the reasoning surely it should be consistent?

If your appraisal/ targets paperwork is completed properly then it should be very easy for someone one level removed to know whether an increase (and how much) is to be given.

Your manager should be familiar enough to be able to do this and see the appraisal docs you should be speaking to them about a summary of people’s performance and career moves

ive seen enough line managers behave in biased ways. Penalising those they don’t get on with and favouring their pets.

for me, as said, this approach is the best as it mitigates that temptation some managers have.

Not necessarily, it depends on seniority budget ownership and rhe duties and familiarity of their manager.

why are you so pissed about it anyway?

Your manager should be aware enough of how they perform, as you should be keeping them up to date with what's going well and what's not. When I managed a team, my manager completed the pay reviews and made me aware of what they were getting, but he was able to do that confidently because he was always kept updated of what they were doing well, what was not going so well.

Who owns the budget?

Whats the team structure?

If your manager manages multiple streams, it makes sense that she sees the overall impact across the entire area.

Does the salary review line up with your performance reviews, or is this a point of principle?

Also, some companies, manager means manager, whereas team leader doesn’t carry that status but rather is a sub section of the full managerial roles. I’ve always thought as team leader as a route to manager and a good learning experience with closer support for the newer team leaders. Once a manager, you tend to be much more liable when things go wrong.

Some companies hand out ‘manager’ like sweeties, and this is just awfull.

My new company is rolling out ‘tribe’ methodology…. Makes me want to vomit.

That's how it's done at my place too, it's based on the results of performance reviews, so if graded 'below expectations', 'meets expectations', 'exceeds expectations' or whatever the scoring is, that translates to a percentage amount, which may be raised or lowered based on factors like attendance/disciplinary proceedings/cust satisfaction results/sales figures etc.

It's a very quantitative/number based procedure.

Not unusual at all. I was once a line manager for everyone except the business owner and one other peer (and I mean everyone from reception to the highest paid employees - and I oversaw the finance department too) - but the business owner did all the salary reviews.

Why does it matter? If you do their appraisals to reflect there performance then your line manager has everything they’d need surely