tonyh29 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 As others have already said. This review will go down in your permanent record with that company so if you don't complain it means you don't see anything in it that you consider contentious or that you don't agree with. If your boss moves on then you're looked at through the eyes of that review by any new boss. If you try to move on - internally or externally - it might impact any references. You have to raise the issue as it was not your fault. You don't have to do it nastily. It is not personal. Diplomacy is the art of not falling out with someone while telling them they messed up. yeah pretty much this When I was at the bank I had a review where I wasn't given excellent for everything so I refused to sign it .. the review was a part of your annual bonus so was quite important in that regard I worked in a small team in Cap Markets but came under the umbrella of Equities so my review was carried out by some bloke who came into our department about once a week or less as it came under his remit and didn't know a thing about what I did ... He was a clearing in the woods in a suit basically , wasn't interested in what I had to say so I explained to him that as didn't even know what I did day to day so he should walk the floor and talk to the users but he refused to do so .. thus I refused to sign the appraisal it went up to HR eventually who agreed that they would consult with the people I worked for day in day out ... who needless to say I had got quite friendly with so it all worked out well in the end clearing in the woods in the suit never spoke to me again ..which was an added bonus ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted July 2, 2013 Author Share Posted July 2, 2013 It used to be similar here Tony, at the end of the review you would sign off (electronically) to agree accpetance. To flag up your unhappiness you'd simply leave it unsigned and you'd get asked why (as HR clearly had a KPI related to unsigned reviews). Now though, nobody seems to care about the fact it hasn't been signed. Got a meeting on Friday with HR where I will request common sense prevails and this gets looked into without the need for a formal complaint as they can see that my 'issue' is clear without the need for dragging people in for their opinions. Don't expect much but you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 2, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2013 There seems to be a common denominator here - both yourself and the boss got a poor review due to being new to the department - is it therefore something you just have to take on the chin? Would have setting those objectives made any real difference? I can sympathise here though - appraisal ratings are coming up soon in our place too although it's very doubtful the ranking system will bear a true reflection unfortunately. Its sad but true of the culture here. Because of the forced ranking that goes on people who are new or newly promoted are easy people to justify as being below the rest of the group due to lesser experience. Its not right and the word on the street is that it is about to be scrapped. More than word on the street, Straight from the HoRse's mouth. It'll be changed by your next one. And it's for the exact reasons you stated above. People are being unfairly downgraded because areas HAVE to have low performers. Even if you're not a low performer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 ................. It'll be changed by your next one. And it's for the exact reasons you stated above. People are being unfairly downgraded because areas HAVE to have low performers. Even if you're not a low performer. On a more general point, this "system" is in place at a lot of big organisations. Effectively the system works like this. A manager, or a series of them rank their people and list them as they feel fit. This list is then allocated against a bell curve such that a very few will get high and likewise a very few will get low. The majority obviously being classified as mid achievers. Now where the system really fails is when the range of people going into this curve is amalgamated with other departments for example. So despite one department being the D's B's and doing really well, another may have done shit but the latter will have people in the high performance section, whereas someone who in the whole scheme of things has done a bloody good job, but unlucky because they are in a high performing team will get a lower award. I have had to mark people this way before - we called it yellow sticky day because basically people's name were placed on Post_it's and we discussed where they were compared to peers etc and moved them accordingly. It's a shit system, one that originated out of the states. Being subjective also you find over a period of time that more savvy will ensure that they "perform" at certain times of the year - typically just before the consideration process. That is why I always suggest to people to keep some sort of log / journal /diary etc if they have systems in place that are basically built on perceptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share Posted July 19, 2013 Little update for those worrying themselves to death about this... ;-) The meeting with HR I mentioned above yielded nothing as expected. To make changes to these scores (and the pay awards) then it needs to be official. Official hearing was yesterday, I thought it went well. Now they all break away and look for some kind of new way to stictch me up. If they can't I should hopefully get some news next week... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts