Performance Review Question - Is this actually OK?

[DiscworldDisaster]

I have namechanged, in the hope of avoiding recognition in RL.

Last year, I was away from work on maternity leave when it was annual performance review time and therefore I did not have my annual performance review and no performance targets (goals) were set for the coming year. I returned to work part way through the review year and my line-manager did not have a meeting with me to set performance targets for the remainder of the year.

Now it has come round to performance review time and of course the problem I have is that because no targets were set for this year, it is impossible for me to exceed my targets! I pointed this out to my line-manager (which changed a couple of months ago) and said that I was unhappy with this and I felt that it unfairly discriminated against me in comparison with people who had not been away and therefore had targets set as normal. My manager now wants to set retrospective targets for the year and assess my performance against retrospective goals.

I do not think this is OK as part of goal setting should be to provide guidance and focus (of the "how do you know you've arrived, if you don't know where you are going?") and to ensure employees clearly know what is expected of them. I feel that by setting retrospective goals, they are simply trying to brush over poor people management within the organisation and will not give recognition to the amount of work I have achieved despite a clear lack of guidance on what I should be aiming for. I therefore feel my long term prospects are being compromised.

Are they allowed to do this as it seems like indirect gender discrimination to me (a man would be less likely to take extended time off work and would therefore not be in a position where goals for the year had not been set adequately)?

Is there a reason why you waited for your line manager to set up a meeting with you to set your objectives when you returned from leave? I would have thought the onus would be on you, if he/ she forgot, in order to avoid the end of year problems you report.

Jumping to claims of discrimination seems a bit OTT unless you tried to set up such meeting and were refused.

I'm not quite sure what you expect your line manager to do? Perhaps he/she should have done a review when taking over the team, to ensure everyone had a current set of objectives to work to, but having only had a few weeks, and being so close to the end of the review period, this may not have seemed like a priority.

Leaping to gender discrimination seems unwarranted - if you'd been on long term sick you would have the same issues.

You feel you can't exceed expectations because the retrospective goals will only match with what you've done anyway, but if being done correctly the goals should reflect was was expected of other people at your level / your previous year's goals, rather than just a tick-box exercise in which you write down what you did and then say that you did it.

Clearly your return to work process hasn't been handled properly, but I have to agree that by apparently sitting on this problem until the review period was over you haven't really helped your own cause.

What did you do about it when you returned to work?

To be honest from what you've posted you've not been discriminated against - you've just been badly managed but equally you've taken no responsibility for your own performance.

If you had never had a job before and were a school leaver I would expect you to be given more help. But as a (presumably) experienced employee then you need to take some responsibility for yourself.

There were lots of meetings when I returned to discuss working conditions etc and lots of changes. I had several meetings with my line-manager to discuss getting my work up and running again, but not to discuss expectations. However, thank you for your helpful comment.

Sorry, that last comment was to heliumballon, cross-posted with a couple of others!

tribpot, it is more a case of my (new) line-manager inheriting the problem from my old one, who didn't set any goals when I first came back. In the type of work I do, it is difficult to set generic goals based on what would be expected typically for someone at that level as the work is very individual, so what is reasonable for one person would be unreasonable for another person depending on the exact area of your work (sorry, it's quite difficult to explain as it is quite a unique type of work in that respect).

Perhaps you could agree a set of goals that you can claim to have exceeded then you'll be Larry laughing . Sorry probably not the answer you were looking for.

It has not been helped by the fact that my department were supposed to have been moving me to a different manager as I have had problems in the past with bullying from the one who was recently moved into the position on being my manager (HR and occupational health were involved as it was impacting on my health). When my department announced this person would become my new line-manager, it rather knocked my confidence in them generally as they had been made aware of previous problems.

Discworld - yes, I realised your new line manager has inherited this problem and it's probably only come to his/her attention now given there would have been a natural assumption that the return to work had been correctly handled.

But if you can't have retrospective objectives set, there don't seem to be many options remaining on the table. How many months of work are we talking about, i.e. were you on leave for only a couple at the beginning and have been back for (say) 10, or 50:50?

It was about 50:50, but I returned on different conditions to before (part-time, plus a few other changes) therefore I concentrated more on just getting back into it again. Tbh, if it was one of the people I line-manage (I also manage a small team) I would not think if they had no targets set that this was their own fault, I'd think it was my fault and therefore responsibility.

You really, really, need to chill on this one.

When managers are busy, ticking all the boxes on the objective setting stuff is the last thing on a long list, and if someone falls through the net (eg because they weren't actually there at the start of they year when their bosses' bosses were breathing down their necks to get it done), then it's a bit unfortunate but not the crime of the century.

And yes, your previous boss should have done this when you started again and didn't. It's tardy on their part but not discrimination by a country mile.

I used to have to set objectives and targets for team members and it's horribly frustrating to go through - you want to do it properly but the times you have free never coincide with the times your team members are free, then a client needs something done urgently, your team member goes on holiday and suddenly it's 6 weeks later and computer says 'no' when you try to stick it in the system.

So, you are where you are. Solutions are (1) stick in retro targets so that your performance for last 6 months can be recorded against how well they would expect someone at your level to be doing. or (2) Don't stick the targets in retrospectively and have no record of your performance for 6 months at all.

No brainer to me.

It sounds like there are a number of factors here. You've returned to work mid-year and had to renegotiate your hours and conditions, and given a manager who you've previously had problems with (or was that the original line manager who's since been moved on?). But there is a significant difference in your case in terms of objective-setting (compared to a member of your team's), which is that as a manager yourself you know what is meant to be done. And should have the wherewithal to sort it out.

That said, it sounds like your return to work has been quite a negative experience overall, and it doesn't feel like your company have done exactly a great deal to make you feel like doing them the favour of managing your manager. Were you half-hoping this might be the catalyst for a bigger look into the poor performance of the original line manager?

StillSquiffy, the retro targets they suggest are not to look at what I should be doing and compare against that, but to take what I have done and use those as targets. By definition this means that I can only ever meet my targets dispite the fact that the work I have generated in 6 months part time is more than most produce in a year, full time.

The consequences of this are that as I am at the top of my payscale, if I only meet my targets, I get a pay freeze (a pay cut in real terms), but only if I am deemed to have exceeded my targets will I get a paycut. I therefore don't think that sitting back and accepting a payfreeze despite the amount of work I have done is acceptable!

Tribpot, I didn't think to do my manager's job for him as I was too busy doing my own. I think setting retrospective targets (which will only ever meet what I have done and subsequently result in a payfreeze for the next year) does attempt to cover up the manager's incompetance whilst financially penalising me.

Before you rock too many boats you might want to check whose responsibility it is to set objectives in your organisation. I know in mine the manager is responsible for approving them but it's up to the individual to start the process. So, someone in your position in my firm would not be well placed to argue exceptional performance.

No, it is a very hierarchical type of organisation - goals are set from on high with the agreement from the individual that they are realistic.

I think the best you can hope for is an average appraisal. You can't expect to get a rating where you have exceeded your targets when you have done nothing about having no targets for months. Appraisals are not just about operational objectives but behaviours too. If you had raised the issue of not having targets that would be different, but according to what you've posted you didn't do anything.

Retrospective targets would only be appropriate if you can be measured against your peers but you suggest this is not possible?

I think you need to accept some of the blame and learn from this for next time.

So they were set but you weren't specifically issued with them??

Right, so your actual salary depends on your having been set targets when you returned to work? But you still didn't make sure it had been done? Or was it only when there was a change of line management that it came to light an informal discussion hadn't been written up? I have to say that although I am sympathetic to the situation, I really don't understand why you didn't get this sorted out sooner.

However, as you have clearly exceeded what could be a reasonable expectation of this year's work (given the amount you have brought in in 6 months) I think you have a relatively strong argument to push back if their intention is just to set retrospective targets at the level that you've achieved. As it's also their mistake and not yours that process wasn't followed, they should consider being generous by way of compensation. But this feels like it takes us back to your original post - had you already made these points to them and been rebuffed?

No, my manager didn't set them, so the paperwork is not there. I also think that given the amount of money I have generated for my employer on a part-time basis, in a few months it should be recognised. Accepting a paycut simply means there is no incetive to generate the same results or better next year, as it is not recognised!

Pay cut or pay freeze? Many people are exceeding targets and still having to accept a pay freeze so the two are not necessarily linked.

You still haven't said what responsibility you have taken to address this issue before.

Payfreeze, which in real terms is a paycut.

Whilst I accept that I could have said "you need to set targets for me", I don't think an employer should hide behind that as a way of not rewarding exceptionally hard work which was also very productive (as an aside, I was btw working within 2 days of having my c-section - to do that and not see any reward when I could have sat home and done nothing but spend time with new dc and still get the same pay does not seem an OK way to treat employees to me).

But once you get past junior entry level positions you are expected to behave in a certain way: set an example, take responsibility for your performance and time management, be proactive. They are just as important as bringing the money in.

You are already at the top of your pay scale so presumably being paid more than most people at your band? If you were paid less and got a rise would you be happier?

I think you should have done more for yourself and stop blaming everyone else. It's what being a manager is about.

I'm sorry that's probably not what you want to hear. You really don't sound like you enjoy working there much. Perhaps you should have a look for something else?

I think you need to work out what you are hoping to achieve here. If you want to get a payrise, and your performance is as good as you say, then your employer is unlikely to want to upset you and risk you leaving for the sake of some overlooked admin. If your position is not that strong, and they are not likely to care so much if you stay or go, then getting stroppy risks irritating them which is not generally a great career move - however justified your position is.

If I were you I would prepare for the review on the basis of what my objectives would/should have been and demonstrate how I have exceeded them. If your manager has not yet set them, they might be pleased to be spared the task and take what you give them. If they won't, then they probably don't want to give you an exceeds rating anyway which is a slightly different problem.

When I worked for a company with a rigid performance v target structure deciding bonuses and pay rises, it was made very clear to us that it was our personal responsibility to make sure that clear goals were set and reviewed on a quarterly basis. Ultimately they were set by management, I didn't have much say in what they actually were, but if was my responsibility to make sure they were clear and written down.

I'd be really careful about suggesting that you have no incentive to do your job next year.

I think the best you can hope for is that acceptance that you bear equal responsibility for the goals not being set. What did you expect to happen at your year end review, if you knew you had no objectives to be measured against?

What do you want to happen? Do you want them to set low retrospective targets?

I think you may have to chalk this up to experience. If my pay was target linked then getting targets set would be the first thing on my to do list when I started back at work. I certainly wouldn't be busting a gut to overperform until targets had been set.

I thought there was a minimum period of maternity leave - is it legal to be working two days after giving birth? (Unless you are self employed). Is this the norm in your sector?