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)?

So, to be clear: you have discussed this with your company and their official response is to suggest a retrospective setting of goals, and have explicitly said these will be set at the level of your achievements, or you have strong reason to assume they will be and you will not be able to argue for them to be set such than you can exceed them?

I think you are wanting your organisation to give you the pay rise you believe (I think with some justification) you deserve - surely their only way to facilitate that in a way that could be defended if challenged is to set you reasonable goals retrospectively.

Nobody looks at the paperwork inbetween review periods at our place. It is difficult to explain, but it is not in the culture of the organisation to bother with the paperwork outside of the standard times of year (review periods), my old manager was an extreme case of this. When the new manager was announced, (several months before he started in the role), I was supposed to be moved under someone else due to past history with the new manager, so I didn't have someone with whom I was supposed to discuss this - old manager had announced he was leaving, there was history with the new manager meaning I was to be moved departments and no announcement of where I was to be moved to (that had not been decided).

However I am not saying I have no incentive to do my job next year, I am saying there is no incentive to work all hours day and night (often through the night) if that only gets the same recognition as doing the job and no more.

Tribpot, my new manager explicitly said to me, "we can just take what you have done and write these on the paperwork as your targets"

LadyWidmerpool, no I don't want them to set low targets! I want them to look at the work I have done and reward for the fact that it is above and beyond what would be expected of someone working full time over the whole year without a break.

There is a minimum period of ML, but that does not stop some work needing to be addressed and when no-one else is there to pick up the slack, you do it because it needs to be done! In that case, it was that a document needed to be produced answering points relating to an income source - the only person who had the knowledge to answer those was me and there was a deadline by which the response needed to be in by, so I did the work.

Right, so what did your new manager say when you made the point that this did not seem reasonable, given the lengths you had gone to?

I take it new manager is the person you were hoping to have been moved away from, but this hasn't happened? I'm assuming this is also partly the reason you probably haven't made the point I ask about above, because there is previous bad blood between you that would make it difficult to have a productive conversation?

OK, if I have got this correct, your real problem is that you believe that you have put in a stellar performance in the half year available to you. But this will not be recognised because they will now define your "target" as being whatever-you-achieved. So though you gave them the moon on a stick, this is redefined as being merely acceptable, and you go unrewarded.

Yes, that's a bugger. I don't think you can fix it by quibbling about whose fault it is that the targets were not set properly in the first place though. It's 50/50 in moral terms, and in practice any HR dept worth its salt will lay the blame entirely at your door. So if you focus on this, you will a) lose and b) piss your manager off in the process, because your argument rests entirely on slagging them off.

I think a better bet is to try to get your targets set/recognised another way. Could you eg get your portion of the bonus pool for that year carried forwards and added to your pool for next year? Ok you have to bust a gut again to get the rewards you have already earned, but if you did it once you can do it again. Or, are there any ongoing projects where you can set interim targets in 6m time, which will be partly work done last year and partly this year?

Given you missed last year's performance review due to being on mat leave what happened to the objectives you had that should have been assessed then? Can you use those, pro rata for part time if appropriate?

He agreed that the work was beyond what would be expected and suggested setting non-SMART targets instead (which will have the same effect in the end). However, what I want is that the work that I have done to be set out as it is with accompanying paperwork saying that no targets were set due to reasons x,y,z but the work is below/in line with/above (delete as appropriate) what would be reasonable to expect from someone returning from ML on a part-time contract. What I do not want them to do is to shoe-horn it onto the standard paperwork and then say retrospectively you should produce x, then and yes, x has been produced.

well if he's agreed it's beyond what would be expected he, and you, must have some idea of what would have been expected so why can't you have that set as an objective? You really need to find a way to work with the system I think if at all possible.

Basically because he doesn't want to do that - as I said, there is some history of bullying on his part in the past (but no witnesses, nothing written down, he claims to be completely unaware of it even though we have had informal meetings where I have brought it up with him - if ever there are witnesses, he claims ignorance) - this has been reported to occ health and HR, but because there are no witnesses it is my word against his that this happened. Also, what he says now is one thing, but what may go down on the paperwork is another - the rules say we are not allowed to see the paperwork, you just get a letter from HR on the month that your new salary is due to start - it is a very strange system and not like any other I've encountered before!

it doesn't sound very good. But I think you're probably wasting your time on this - it seems to me your issues are a lot more complex than the form of words used on paperwork that you don't even get to see. Does your manager know you are expecting a pay rise and when he agreed your work was beyond what would be expected did you discuss the implications for pay? if not, you need to have that conversation explicitly if that's what matters most to you.

You are right, I probably am, but one can always hope. Jobs are too thin on the ground at the moment to realistically find a decent alternative in the near future, otherwise leaving would be the preferable option.

Thanks for taking the time to reply though.

aaarghhhhhh.

Have you, at any stage, expressly said "Given that I have overperformed since returning, will this be recognised in my review of performance, regardless of the fact that objectives were not set?" I don't see anywhere that this is expressly the case. I know you've assumed it, but that's not the same as having it confirmed.

If this happened in my last org (where the computer is God and no objectives = shite appraisal) and the person in question had enjoyed a stellar period of performance then a retrospectively entered set of 'standard' objectives would be entered, and then performance against them would be marked 'exceeded' so that it would force out the 'right' answer come bonus time. The stuff put inot the system would be whatever was needed to get the right answer out. We had over 100,000 people getting formally appraised every year, so - as you can imagine - this kind of thing happened with more than a handful of people every year (almost always when there was a mangerial change or someone started mid-way through a year)

Have you specifically asked the question?

If you have, and the answer is that you will only get 'satisfactory' gradings despite an exceptional performance then you need to raise it with HR as an administrative problem (and certainly not as discrimination), and ask them how they can ensure that you receive recognition for an exceptional performance given that this is not being recorded by mgmt at the moment. They will probably come back with one of 3 replies:-

1. They tell you that you will get marked according to your performance, regardless of timing of entry into the system
2. They tell you you will get marked based on previously recorded assessments/performance
3. They tell you that you will in this situation get marked as satisfactory regardless of your performance levels during the year

Seems to me you are assuming no 3 will apply, regardless. You need to get told that explicitly by HR or your manager, in writing. Then you may have a good reason to jump up and down saying that this isn't fair. Even then, though the 'blame' for this is partly at your own door.

So. You need to get a full answer to the exam question in writing first. Then you need to pull together all the evidence to support your assertion that you have exceeded what would normally be considered satisfactory for someone at your level. Then you need to present it clearly, concisely and unemotionally as a set of evidence to show that you should be rewarded for an exceptional performance again.

The worst thing you can possibly do is go in all guns blazing and crying discrimination at something which has been created simply by administrative error. If someone came to me presenting all the stuff you have presented here in the way you have repesented it in this thread, saying that you were being treated unfairly and discriminated against then I would firstly check what the manager intended to do performance-wise, would make sure that the actual performance was appropriately graded (regardless of objective setting) and give you an earful for not managing your own objective-setting process. And I would mark you down as unhinged and potentially litigious, which is not a very nice place for you to find yourself.

Come to me instead presenting this as an admin problem to be resolved, along with a set of clear evidence to show that your performance has been exceptional, and I would do all the same things but would not also be filing you in the 'dangerous people' file.

StillSquiffy, yes I did explictly say "my work carried out within 6 months of part-time is more than you would expect from a full-time employee over a year who has not taken a break" and my line-manager agreed this was the case. However, during performance reviews appraisers are not allowed to discuss the recommendation they will make - this is explicitly stressed from the employer and reinforced via email from on high prior to performance review "season". All you get is that you put your case to them and you get a letter from HR several months later in the month that your new salary kicks in - no information is given prior to this. In many sectors I rather suspect this practice is barely legal, but due to the sector it is in, this practice is taken as being OK.

There is no intention to go in there "all guns blazing" as you say - that is not my style of working - I don't approach my work in that aggressive style. The point of this thread was simply to find out whether setting retrospective targets is actually OK from a legal perspective as this situation is much more likely to be a position women will find themselves in after returning to work than men (yes, men can take long term leave, but in all probability, more women will do so). The fact that retrospective targets based on stating that what you have achieved is only ever acceptable not more clearly impacts on longer term career.

"The fact that retrospective targets based on stating that what you have achieved is only ever acceptable not more clearly impacts on longer term career."

I CANNOT stress it clearly enough - when have they said it is FACT that they will only give you an 'acceptable'? I've seen retro stuff done tons of times and it is dead easy to plug it into the system to still give above average appraisals out the other end. You have said nothing in any of your posts to suggest that you have actually discussed this possibility with anyone.

Here's what you do:

"Dear HR.

I am concerned that my objectives have not been entered into the system this year because of an administrative oversight by my previous boss, X

My current boss, Y is suggesting that he retrospectively enter objectives to reflect the work I have been doing

I am concerned that work which I (and Y) consider to be exceptional or well above average for my level may therefore only result in a 'satisfactory' rating simply by dint of my performance 'matching' rather than exceeding this 'retrospective' criteria.

Please can you let me know your policy of dealing with such situations, so that I may be assured that my appraisal accurately reflects my performance over the period when I operated without formal objectives in place.

Love DD"

That is all you need to do, and they can answer that question easily without contravening any of the policies you've just mentioned.