Pay Assessments
Posted: Tue 24 March, 2009 | Author: Lyle | Filed under: Cynicism, Thoughts, Work-related |1 Comment »Recently, the current workplace has announced a change to the assessments/appraisals procedure that’s used to define pay rises. And because of the current financial climate, they’re doing everything they can in order to get out of giving any pay rises at all.
Firstly, anyone who’s been here less than nine months doesn’t qualify at all for an appraisal. There’s only one “full” appraisal per year, and an interim one come Augustish, so they’ve got to wait ’til this time next year before a pay rise can even begin to happen.
Back in August, the “interim” appraisal laid out some goals (assuming you’d been in your current position for more than six months) that each person should have attained over the year between “full” appraisals.The chances of anyone completing all these goals is – to say the least – minimal.
If people haven’t completed all their goals, then they need to have a good reason why not – including evidence of what they were doing that meant the goals weren’t completed. The requirement for evidence has only been revealed in the last two weeks. Without evidence, they’ve no chance of getting a good appraisal.
If people have completed all their goals, then they will score a “2” out of 4. A score of “2” means ‘does the job adequately’, but doesn’t equate with a pay-rise.
To get a pay-rise, a person has to score at least a “3”, and to be assessed by their line-manager as being worthy of a “3” as well. To get a “3” they would have to show evidence of having completed everything in their own job, all their goals, and having been helpful and hyper-motivated to other people outside the team they’re in.
To get a “4”, I think you’ve just got to be Buddha, Gandhi and Mother Theresa all rolled into one. With some humility on the side, obviously – it’s no good being perfect without it…
Just about everyone now knows that they’re not going to get a pay-rise, regardless of how well they’ve worked through the year. Needless to say, the motivation levels have fallen through the floor.
All this is being marketed as an improvement on efficiency, alongside providing financial savings for the company. What they don’t seem to have realised is that there’s also been a significant hike in number of people now wanting Out, and looking any/elsewhere for a new job. I wonder what the savings will be when you add in all the new recruitment and training costs?
“I wonder what the savings will be when you add in all the new recruitment and training costs?”
That’s assuming they refill the posts of people who’ve left. Retaining the salary of a leaver must look very tempting if they’re efficiency/cost-saving obsessed. It may be that instead of recruiting, they split the workload between other existing staff or just dump it all on one person – increasing their workload, making their performance targets less realistic and further reducing their chances of a payrise. Which should all be good for morale…