Employee Not Participating in Review Process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they are busy doing actual work?

Right! Review are just another BS tool HR uses to justify their existence. Such a f-ing waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...have you mentioned that this is mandatory to the team and a requirement to receive a compensation increase? Sometimes management sends random requests are just more BS and not required.

Yes, it's been made very clear that it's mandatory. Multiple times.

Well, it doesn’t sound mandatory if nothing happens. I mean they don’t get raise, but they still have a job and paycheck coming? Seriously, what is the repercussions? None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why you can't just write your assessment of the employee's workplace as best you can recognizing that it probably won't be as good or complete as it would be if this employee had provided input regarding their accomplishments. Then, based on their actual performance give them a raise or don't give them a raise.

.

I would not give a raise. No. They are not listening. I hate them too, but I go through the motions because I am supposed to and clearly the organizations wants it and they pay me so …

[Anonymous]

Dollars to donuts this is an architecture firm. Run by architects. That's the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really surprised by all of the comments here. OP told employee to do something that was required. Employee did not. Are employers supposed to beg their employees to do things these days? Sheesh!

I suspect it’s mostly one person whose nose is really out of joint about their job.

[Anonymous]

This is a crazy question, but have you sat down and had a conversation with the employee?

What's going on with them? Are they depressed? Is a family member sick?

Is this new behavior for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really surprised by all of the comments here. OP told employee to do something that was required. Employee did not. Are employers supposed to beg their employees to do things these days? Sheesh!

The OP complaining about the employee not to participate in the review process is probably NOT the employee's supervisor/boss.

I think OP is hiding behind the "self-assessment" to point out some things to the employee. Why wait for a yearly review to do it makes no sense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a crazy question, but have you sat down and had a conversation with the employee?

What's going on with them? Are they depressed? Is a family member sick?

Is this new behavior for them?

This just happened this week, so not yet. I think that’ll be what we do next week when we can see this person in person.

Those are all great items to consider and honestly my mind didn’t go there as this person seems to have some trouble following our (pretty laid back and flexible) policies already. So that’s where my mind went first, but I appreciate you providing a different outlook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really surprised by all of the comments here. OP told employee to do something that was required. Employee did not. Are employers supposed to beg their employees to do things these days? Sheesh!

The OP complaining about the employee not to participate in the review process is probably NOT the employee's supervisor/boss.

I think OP is hiding behind the "self-assessment" to point out some things to the employee. Why wait for a yearly review to do it makes no sense!

I am this persons boss. We do give regular feedback, but as I’ve said several times, our annual reviews are more than self assessments, largely goal setting for the next 6 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really surprised by all of the comments here. OP told employee to do something that was required. Employee did not. Are employers supposed to beg their employees to do things these days? Sheesh!

Op here, thanks, that’s what I thought too, but this has been a little eye opening. No one else in our organization considers these optional and I never did either prior to being promoted. Never crossed my mind to just “opt out”

[Anonymous]

Guarantee the person is leaving and doesn't care about their review or the process.

[Anonymous]

1. This employee is unhappy with the nature of the review, so much so he is willing to antagonize the company over it. This is a BIG DEAL.

2. This means he's probably looking for another job.

3. This ALSO means the company has to rethink their review process because it might be completely ridiculous!

[Anonymous]

To all those who keep saying that OP and employers are being unreasonable, you are not being reasonable. Most states are at will employment states. If an employee has a mandatory procedure for reviewing and awarding performance or cost of living adjustments to employees, then it is mandatory and the employees need to jump through the hoops to get those raises/COLA. While you all think that this is unreasonable, and you blow off the review process or copy the input from the previous year, the entire process may have some important reasons. Most employers these days have to be very careful and on legal grounds to document their interactions with employees, and the process by which they review and aware raises and adjustments. Many employees are much more litigious these days and EEO standards have gotten stricter. There are many employees who will use any form of protected class as the argument for filing suit against an employer even when there are performance or adherence to rule issues. Employers use mandatory processes to help to ensure they have a documented process and procedure for reviewing all employees and that they have documented information for performance issues.

So, they are pro forma for you, but the process has to be documented. If you blow off the process and they have incomplete documentation, but give you a high rating, then if they get sued by an employee with performance issues who is a member of a protected class, the employment lawyers can point to the fact that you received a higher raise/COLA than their client, but that the company did not document why you, a non-protected class member, received a higher rating, but their client did not.

Having been in the position to have to let an employee of a protected class go in the past, when we were doing the PIP and later termination process, I had documentation about the other team members, their performance, and their ratings and I could include that the ratings had no pattern based on protected class (e.g. other employees in the same protected class had better reviews and better ratings and did not have the issues recorded against this employee).

So, while you think it is not important, for the employer, these processes are very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To all those who keep saying that OP and employers are being unreasonable, you are not being reasonable. Most states are at will employment states. If an employee has a mandatory procedure for reviewing and awarding performance or cost of living adjustments to employees, then it is mandatory and the employees need to jump through the hoops to get those raises/COLA. While you all think that this is unreasonable, and you blow off the review process or copy the input from the previous year, the entire process may have some important reasons. Most employers these days have to be very careful and on legal grounds to document their interactions with employees, and the process by which they review and aware raises and adjustments. Many employees are much more litigious these days and EEO standards have gotten stricter. There are many employees who will use any form of protected class as the argument for filing suit against an employer even when there are performance or adherence to rule issues. Employers use mandatory processes to help to ensure they have a documented process and procedure for reviewing all employees and that they have documented information for performance issues.

So, they are pro forma for you, but the process has to be documented. If you blow off the process and they have incomplete documentation, but give you a high rating, then if they get sued by an employee with performance issues who is a member of a protected class, the employment lawyers can point to the fact that you received a higher raise/COLA than their client, but that the company did not document why you, a non-protected class member, received a higher rating, but their client did not.

Having been in the position to have to let an employee of a protected class go in the past, when we were doing the PIP and later termination process, I had documentation about the other team members, their performance, and their ratings and I could include that the ratings had no pattern based on protected class (e.g. other employees in the same protected class had better reviews and better ratings and did not have the issues recorded against this employee).

So, while you think it is not important, for the employer, these processes are very important.

My understanding is the employee only blew off a self-assessment which I have never heard of being mandatory. I guess I've never worked at an organization so flush with cash that employees rate themselves and get a raise over inflation. My optional self-assessment goals have literally been reused since 5 years ago when I cared enough to make goals. OP are you hiring project managers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all those who keep saying that OP and employers are being unreasonable, you are not being reasonable. Most states are at will employment states. If an employee has a mandatory procedure for reviewing and awarding performance or cost of living adjustments to employees, then it is mandatory and the employees need to jump through the hoops to get those raises/COLA. While you all think that this is unreasonable, and you blow off the review process or copy the input from the previous year, the entire process may have some important reasons. Most employers these days have to be very careful and on legal grounds to document their interactions with employees, and the process by which they review and aware raises and adjustments. Many employees are much more litigious these days and EEO standards have gotten stricter. There are many employees who will use any form of protected class as the argument for filing suit against an employer even when there are performance or adherence to rule issues. Employers use mandatory processes to help to ensure they have a documented process and procedure for reviewing all employees and that they have documented information for performance issues.

So, they are pro forma for you, but the process has to be documented. If you blow off the process and they have incomplete documentation, but give you a high rating, then if they get sued by an employee with performance issues who is a member of a protected class, the employment lawyers can point to the fact that you received a higher raise/COLA than their client, but that the company did not document why you, a non-protected class member, received a higher rating, but their client did not.

Having been in the position to have to let an employee of a protected class go in the past, when we were doing the PIP and later termination process, I had documentation about the other team members, their performance, and their ratings and I could include that the ratings had no pattern based on protected class (e.g. other employees in the same protected class had better reviews and better ratings and did not have the issues recorded against this employee).

So, while you think it is not important, for the employer, these processes are very important.

My understanding is the employee only blew off a self-assessment which I have never heard of being mandatory. I guess I've never worked at an organization so flush with cash that employees rate themselves and get a raise over inflation. My optional self-assessment goals have literally been reused since 5 years ago when I cared enough to make goals. OP are you hiring project managers?

Op here… please read responses where I’ve said multiple times that it’s not just a self assessment. They also get peer reviews and we go through a goal setting process. Mostly to serve them TBH. If there’s performance issues, this is (one of) the times to address that as well. We try really hard to react to constructive criticism or address wants/needs of an employee from a professional development standpoint. We are trying to retain employees and address their concerns.

We put more effort into reviews and professional development that any other place I’ve been and generally get the same feedback from other employees.

It’s mandatory to participate in our reviews, not sure what else to say. Also, not all bosses suck and some of us truly want to see people do well.