Annual review / Bonus

Heat_Wave

Hi all

Going to try and keep this brief.

I've been in my current workplace for 9 months. I have really turned things around for my team during those months. To quote my manager 'you are like a bright light that has just shone done on the team'.

Fast forward 9 months and it's bonus time. Genuinely believed I would receive an excellent bonus. I ended up getting the lowest rating. Initially, I was told 'do not take this personally. It is 100% no reflection on you. We had to give you this rating as you've only been here for 9 months. If anything you have exceeded goals'.

My problem is this. My rating falls under the category 'does not meet goals'. I have been told by my manager that this does not reflect my work, and as previously stated, was the only suitable category to place me in due to my length of time in the company. I cannot have this rating beside my name as it is totally unjustified and will hinder me going forward in terms of future employment/internal positions.

Any advice as to what I can do?

Ps. I don't even care about the money.

Andalucia

performance ratings - a joke in my experience, the ratings band is already decided for the company as a whole, the mgmt are then left to deliver the bad news and make this as easy as possible for themselves- that's the way it has been for me

Work your arse off and you still can't get outperform because those in the click have to get those ratings

All the newbies are left with meets expectations or do not meet expectations - easier for mgmt who can't manage, still worth documenting why you believe rating does not reflect performance

Mrs OBumble

Somebody in the team had to get that rating, the bell curve said so. In some companies, it's always the newbie.

Also, if you got a meets expectations or exceeds them in your first year, that leaves nothing better to give you next year.

And lastly, if someone who has only just joined the team gets a high grade, then it looks like the manager has hired someone who is too good for the job, rather than someone (cheaper) who can grow into it.



Yes, this sucks. For some personalities, it's incredibly demotivating. But either you learn to fit in and play the game and not get demotivated by it, or you need to leave and go somewhere smaller where this sort of nonsense isn't applied.

jimmycrackcorm

Op, this is pretty normal. The theory is that in your probationary period you're learning and as such you cannot be as effective as if you're well established in your role.

It's irritating as hell as I remember in my first year that I made more changes and improvements in my team than I've since and had the same result as you.

goalscoringhero

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

For some personalities, it's incredibly demotivating. But either you learn to fit in and play the game and not get demotivated by it, or you need to leave and go somewhere smaller where this sort of nonsense isn't applied.

This, emphasized!
And good advice too.

Nobody should have to experience such treatment.

I'm sure you would understand if you were told "you've done an excellent job and exceeded expectations, but we cannot afford to give you raise/bonus or any other financial acknowledgement right now. But we won't forget.."

Being rated low for no other reason than to make team performance fit into some statistical model is farcical, short-sighted and is devaluing your work.

Weigh up your values (and value) with the benefits of the place you are currently working. And not just on monetary aspects (both, value and benefits).

Irish_Elect_Eng

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Op, this is pretty normal. The theory is that in your probationary period you're learning and as such you cannot be as effective as if you're well established in your role.

It's irritating as hell as I remember in my first year that I made more changes and improvements in my team than I've since and had the same result as you.

Yes, pretty Normal. Our rating system did not have a rating for those in training or interns or probation. With a note in the rating summary stating that they wear on probation, etc. So they got a low rating as it was not fair to rate then as achieving or exceeding goals and give the same rating to fully trained folks who were much more productive.

After a few years or complaints to the system champions a new category was added "Too new to evaluate" which was a fairer reflection of the situation.

Eoin

This sounds ridiculous, and it's certainly nothing I would have done when I was managing people. While I would have had to push for one of my team to get an "exceeds" rating, I never had to make up for that by giving someone else a "doesn't meet" to balance it out.

My rating falls under the category 'does not meet goals'...
I cannot have this rating beside my name as it is totally unjustified and will hinder me going forward in terms of future employment/internal positions

I'd be concerned about this too - as far as the record shows, you're not performing.

How detailed was the review? Like, were there specific areas where they claimed you were not good enough in, or was it just a vague overall ranking?

If they're being totally upfront and saying you should have gotten a better ranking, then there's not much more you can say that I can think of.

But if it's a case of a manager not being good at having difficult conversations and not telling you where you need to improve (some people are terrible at this and think they're being nice by not saying anything), then you might be able to find out if there actually is something you need to be doing better.

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

After a few years or complaints to the system champions a new category was added "Too new to evaluate" which was a fairer reflection of the situation.

This sounds a lot more fair - though 9 months should be more than enough for someone to be evaluated, and even for someone to be doing very well in the role.

Eugene Norman

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Somebody in the team had to get that rating, the bell curve said so. In some companies, it's always the newbie.

Also, if you got a meets expectations or exceeds them in your first year, that leaves nothing better to give you next year.

And lastly, if someone who has only just joined the team gets a high grade, then it looks like the manager has hired someone who is too good for the job, rather than someone (cheaper) who can grow into it.



Yes, this sucks. For some personalities, it's incredibly demotivating. But either you learn to fit in and play the game and not get demotivated by it, or you need to leave and go somewhere smaller where this sort of nonsense isn't applied.

Not all companies bell curve like that. And the manager can fight it. The op should leave.

Eugene Norman

goalscoringhero wrote: »

This, emphasized!
And good advice too.

Nobody should have to experience such treatment.

I'm sure you would understand if you were told "you've done an excellent job and exceeded expectations, but we cannot afford to give you raise/bonus or any other financial acknowledgement right now. But we won't forget.."

Being rated low for no other reason than to make team performance fit into some statistical model is farcical, short-sighted and is devaluing your work.

Weigh up your values (and value) with the benefits of the place you are currently working. And not just on monetary aspects (both, value and benefits).

He's out of probation. If they want to do this fairly then they should

1) not review him until his personal year is up. Or
2) review him fairly and pro-rata the increase.

The manager is taking what he thinks is an easy road to not have somebody else on the bottom rung. But it's not his fault. Bell curving existing teams is madness.

Jim2007

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes, this sucks. For some personalities, it's incredibly demotivating. But either you learn to fit in and play the game and not get demotivated by it, or you need to leave and go somewhere smaller where this sort of nonsense isn't applied.

Or you simply don't accept it. On the two occasions it was 'suggested' to me I made it very clear to the manager involved that his problems were only beginning if he thought that was going to fly. And like the magic the problem went away, I expect he found someone more willing to sit in the corner.

Heat_Wave

I met with HR today and was told that I can appeal this. It is a lengthy process and involves my manager having to find a 'middle person' to arbitrate the situation between us. As she has only just been promoted to 'manager' in recent months, I am not sure if she will like this.

What are people's thoughts?

I am so angry.

Diziet

If it was me, I would appeal. They need to give you very good reasons for rating you low, and as you said, it stays against your name.

jethrothe2nd

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Somebody in the team had to get that rating, the bell curve said so. In some companies, it's always the newbie.

Also, if you got a meets expectations or exceeds them in your first year, that leaves nothing better to give you next year.

And lastly, if someone who has only just joined the team gets a high grade, then it looks like the manager has hired someone who is too good for the job, rather than someone (cheaper) who can grow into it.



Yes, this sucks. For some personalities, it's incredibly demotivating. But either you learn to fit in and play the game and not get demotivated by it, or you need to leave and go somewhere smaller where this sort of nonsense isn't applied.

This exactly

Eoin

Heat_Wave wrote: »

I met with HR today and was told that I can appeal this. It is a lengthy process and involves my manager having to find a 'middle person' to arbitrate the situation between us. As she has only just been promoted to 'manager' in recent months, I am not sure if she will like this.

What are people's thoughts?

I am so angry.

I think I'd give a less formal approach another go before you go down this road. I think you'd be lucky if this didn't damage your relationship with your manager.

Did HR confirm that this was the only rating suitable for someone in the company for 9 months like your manager said?

Heat_Wave

Eoin wrote: »

I think I'd give a less formal approach another go before you go down this road. I think you'd be lucky if this didn't damage your relationship with your manager.

Did HR confirm that this was the only rating suitable for someone in the company for 9 months like your manager said?

I did this exact thing today. I asked to speak with her. It did not go very well. I think it is more a case of stubbornness on her side tbh. I arrived prepared, I had statistics and pie charts to prove my side of things. I think this angered her even more. She said she would not overturn the rating and agreed we would go ahead with the appeal.

HR confirmed that newbies are not confined to that rating. They think there is more going on behind the scenes (as in my manager doesn't think I am as good as I believe myself to be).

Irish_Elect_Eng

Heat_Wave wrote: »

I did this exact thing today. I asked to speak with her. It did not go very well. I think it is more a case of stubbornness on her side tbh. I arrived prepared, I had statistics and pie charts to prove my side of things. I think this angered her even more. She said she would not overturn the rating and agreed we would go ahead with the appeal.

HR confirmed that newbies are not confined to that rating. They think there is more going on behind the scenes (as in my manager doesn't think I am as good as I believe myself to be).

So you have a hard decision to make.

If you damage your relationship with your manager badly, one poor rating will probably be the least of your problems. If you drop yourself into the "troublemaker" category, you could be killing your career within the company stone dead. If you appeal and are successful will your manager lose so much face that you will lose more in the long-run? If you lose then you are back to square one with a manager + HR convinced that you are under-performing.

You could take the approach that you accept the rating for what your manager said it was and treat it as no reflection on your work. Then set up goals with your manager to ensure that you can get an achieves rating next year. (I would not hold out for an exceeds after events so far, that will probably take 2 years of excellent performance at this stage.

Your other option, is the nuclear one and may be the best one for you, move on to a company with a culture that suits you and a manager that appreciate your work more.

jimmycrackcorm

Heat_Wave wrote:

I met with HR today and was told that I can appeal this. It is a lengthy process and involves my manager having to find a 'middle person' to arbitrate the situation between us. As she has only just been promoted to 'manager' in recent months, I am not sure if she will like this.

You should appeal then. Why not, you've nothing to lose and everything to gain. Apart from your own stats., you can argue the case that your manager is also new and as such their own experience of performance management shows to be at odds as to what you can demonstrate.

Stheno

Is the manager who did your review the same one who gave you the glowing reports?

Heat_Wave

Stheno wrote: »

Is the manager who did your review the same one who gave you the glowing reports?

Yes.

When I was called in initially by her, I was told 'do not take this personally. It is absolutely no reflection on you or your work. We had to give you this rating because you haven't been in the company long enough'. I said 'OK' and that was it.

I spent that night thinking this over in my head and it worried me that she could say one thing, yet put another in writing.

The following day I asked to speak with her. I told her that I felt extremely deflated having been given said rating, and I told her that I would not accept having it on my record as you cannot say one thing, yet put another in writing.

She then changed her tune completely.

She then went awkwardly on to say 'ah well there have been one or two issues....' and listed two issues which were completely made up and would not have impacted on my rating. This is what worries me. Evidence has shown (above) that she is well capable of lying in the appeal.

To be very honest, I do not plan in staying with this company. I am currently looking for other jobs. The ironic thing is, I was very content working here only one week ago. Since I received my rating, the place feels very different to me. So whether this causes bad blood between myself and my manager is irrelevant to me. I value myself and my work too much.

steamsey

"Performance management" in Irish companies is usually a complete and utter mess, and in many cases, serves only to demotivate employees and waste vast amounts of company time discussing ratings, the application (or not) of the "bell curve" and what to actually do with those who get a less than satisfactory rating.

If you were not performing to standard, you should absolutely not have heard about it for the first time in a performance review environment. The entire point of the process is to manage peoples' performance and keep them on track during the year while giving those that need a push in right direction a chance to change their course BEFORE they end up with a less than satisfactory rating.

You should not give someone who has been there for 9 months a rating and expect anyone to take it seriously. You should be exempt until the next cycle but should still receive feedback from managers - albeit informally. If they are genuinely giving you a less than satisfactory - what are the consequence? Performance improvement plans? Did they clearly list out the areas you need to improve? The absence of items such as these could suggest a farce.

I know an employee who once complained about the application of the bell curve (it is management consultancy nonsense IMO) and was simply told that it is a great way to clear out the deadwood.

To offer a bit of a hard view if I can - if the company really genuinely likes you and wants you to stay - you will not get a less than satisfactory rating. What's happened is that either 1) your manager / company here has fudged the entire process because they are too dumb to manage it effectively or 2) they don't care if you leave / want you to leave.

Either way, it's a timely opportunity to take stock but beware - most larger Irish companies (and almost all plcs) will have almost the same performance management structure and bell curve nonsense. For certain professions, it's all too hard to avoid so one view could be stick with it - make it impossible for them to ever give you a less than satisfactory again and learn to play the game.

cmac2009

Heat_Wave wrote: »

Yes.

When I was called in initially by her, I was told 'do not take this personally. It is absolutely no reflection on you or your work. We had to give you this rating because you haven't been in the company long enough'. I said 'OK' and that was it.

I spent that night thinking this over in my head and it worried me that she could say one thing, yet put another in writing.

The following day I asked to speak with her. I told her that I felt extremely deflated having been given said rating, and I told her that I would not accept having it on my record as you cannot say one thing, yet put another in writing.

She then changed her tune completely.

She then went awkwardly on to say 'ah well there have been one or two issues....' and listed two issues which were completely made up and would not have impacted on my rating. This is what worries me. Evidence has shown (above) that she is well capable of lying in the appeal.

To be very honest, I do not plan in staying with this company. I am currently looking for other jobs. The ironic thing is, I was very content working here only one week ago. Since I received my rating, the place feels very different to me. So whether this causes bad blood between myself and my manager is irrelevant to me. I value myself and my work too much.

I think you made the correct decision. Well done. Most people wouldn't want to rock the boat and just sit there angry about it.

Irish_Elect_Eng

cmac2009 wrote: »

I think you made the correct decision. Well done. Most people wouldn't want to rock the boat and just sit there angry about it.

Not so sure about that.

Sometimes the choice is between being right and being successful.

Bending and riding the punches give you opportunities to be successful later.


In many organisations you need to learn how to play the game or game the system to be successful further down the road. Many people give up on great careers in generally good companies because they have an experience with a poor manager. With a bit of savvy, working to get reassigned or get yourself promoted out of that team you can go on to have a great career.

But leaving is certainly an option. But if you are leaving, do not fight the system before you go, it is stressful and ultimately pointless if you intend to leave. Use your exit interview to make the reason for your departure clear if you must, but don't waste your energy on the fight, use it for your job-search.

stoplooklisten

Appeal, bell curve or no bell curve, you're either meeting the targets or you're not


lazy managment

Jim2007

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Sometimes the choice is between being right and being successful.

Bending and riding the punches give you opportunities to be successful later.

On the contrary you just become the company doormat, the one they know will take whatever crap they can't pass of to everyone else so long as they give you a pat on the head every so often.

Irish_Elect_Eng

I think that you are missing my point somewhat.

I am not suggesting that anybody should suck-it-up forever if they find themselves in a destructive environment, that is not healthy in the long term. That is a lose-win situation.

But you need to be careful chasing the win-lose also. It undoubtedly makes us feel better temporarily to "win" an argument/dispute with a co-worker or manager. But in the long run, those wins can come with a high cost to a career or a relationship.

Managing a bad situation for a short period of time while you take actions to change the situation or when you can see benefits & rewards in the medium/long term is a strategy that can be adopted to succeed in a difficult situation. This can work well if you have the soft-skills and emotional intelligence to handle the other people involved as well as manage your own mental well being.

I learned a lot in the past working with challenging people

Just many different approaches to a problem.
All are both right and wrong for different sorts of people.

LegacyUser

OP - did you post before on a previous thread about your position in this company and whether or not they would give you a permanent job - are you there on a year long contract or something? Are you not long qualified?

That is a very odd rating to give someone without a good reason, regardless of how long they have been in a position. I have started 2 new jobs in the last 5 years in 2 separate companies; in both jobs I started around August time, and had a review in Nov/Dec. Hardly any time to settle in really. And in both, the rating was something like "acceptable" or "meets requirements" - type stuff. And in both I was told "you're doing very well, but obviously you're only here a couple of months so it's a standard rating". And in both - I got very a small bonus as a token gesture. Which sat fine with me, obviously I was happy to get anything.

I don't think performance management systems are the be all and end all and I do agree with previous commentators - they can be an awful mess. But people generally don't get ratings like that without a damn good reason, in my experience (11 years of it). Something is going on there - either, as someone else said, they don't care whether you go or not, or else you aren't doing as well in the role as you think you are. And I would be careful with HR too; they could well be telling you one thing, but having plenty of conversations in the background with your manager and be in full agreement with them. This stuff doesn't just happen randomly or in isolation, generally there is a wider knowledge of it in the background.

Appeal it if you want, but if you are going out to find another job,step carefully in your appeal, both in your dealings with HR and management. At the end of the day it doesn't matter that much what was in your PM paperwork - but you need those people for a reference for future roles, and that matters much, much more. Bear that in mind.