EE does not want a raise

HRCathy · October 2003

I have an employee who is not happy with his evaluation, refuses to sign it and says that he doesn't want the raise. He is not a bad ee, but not one that warrants outstanding marks. His supervisor told him what he needed to raise his marks, and the ee doesn't want to do anything more than he is doing now. He evidently did not get the raise he was expecting. I am not happy with just filing the review and leaving it alone. I didn't process the raise, but I am thinking I should create some kind of action plan. I'm not sure how much trouble I can get into with this scenario. What would you do in this situation?

marc · October 2003

I think in the interest of keeping your budget balanced, you should forward the difference to our organization as a charitable deduction.

Does your evaluation form allow the ee to enter comments, basically to log his disagreement and reasoning. That may not get a signature, but you will have evidence it happened. Other than that, just have the supervisor or yourself note that the ee refused to sign and refused the raise.

If the supervisor has problems with the marks, what kind of action plan was discussed to make this happen? The action plan should have been in the evaluation if the performance issues are large enough to warrant one. The supervisor needs to follow up on these aspects - again if it is warranted. Obviously, performance is good enough to get a raise, and by inference, better performance merits better raises. If all that was said, I don't think additional plans are necessary.

HRCathy · October 2003

Thanks for the input. This employee has a bit of an entitlement mentality. 10 years ago raises were much more generous. Now, he just thinks he is worth more money and he does not want to do what the supervisor told him he would have to do to get better marks. So, I noted that on his review, he did not want to make any comments, he did not want to come see me and talk about it. If you find this hard to believe, he didn't get a good mark on "attitude". I will ask the supervisor to give me more details on the review session in writing and add it to his file. I would be happy to send you his raise, but the postage would cost me more than the raise would have. x;-)

Down_the_Middle · October 2003

I would acknowledge on his eval that he chooses to refuse the increase and give copy to him as confirmation of his agreement. I would then assist the Suprv in dealing with the need to improve his performance. If his performance is "acceptable" and he simply does not wish to be a "better performer", I'd leave it alone. The dollars he chooses to ignore for exemplary performance is his business------------as long as he meets the expected standards of performance. If his performance is not acceptable and the Suprv needs help developing a performance improvement plan, then that's where the focus s/b. I can only remember seeing this once b/4 in my career and the employee changed his mind during the year and started his path to superstardom. It was the principle, to him..........

San Francisco · October 2003

I don't think this employee - or any employee - should dictate the terms or consequences of an evaluation. Very honestly, I would process the raise and make certain that he understands that he will still be held to whatever goals, improvement needed etc that were discussed with him on his evaluation. If he continues to have the same issues addressed in his evaluation, you may need to start a formal disciplinary process.

Elizabeth

Don D · October 2003

I agree 100% with San Francisco. Don't allow employees to dictate or manipulate the direction performance review/salary increases take. Once you take a path of noting his disagreement and your decision to allow him to dictate the direction of the process, he has won the pissing contest. Pardon the French, which is really Southern, not French at all. It's time someone took control of the situation there, which may involve a performance improvement plan or may involve discipline. But, the review and the minimal raise should stand, as is. If he persists in his objection, tell him to donate it to the animal shelter.

Down_the_Middle · October 2003

I can't get too excited over the "impression" that the employee is managing your evaluation process. His huff N puff does nothing to your process. His right to disagree with the evaluation goes w/o saying. His desire to do different tasks is only at the discretion of the suprv and his refusal to take the merit increase is a little strange, but .............. why offer a merit increase to someone who declines receiving it? To prove a point that thou shalt not mess with the system? Are ya'll reading some other things that I'm missing?? Is there some contractual issue that obligates you to pay the increase? Depends, I guess, on how fired up you want to get over the issue...... I see the point of the others' (sort of), just disagree.

mwild31 · October 2003

Since the company had already decided that an increase was in order for his job performance & in keeping with company/market conditions - I would go forward with the increase.

Even though the employee said he didn't want to meet with you to discuss his issues, I would still insist he meet with HR. In the meeting, let him know that the evaluation will be entered into his file, let him know that he can write a rebuttal & it too will be filed. Next, I would ask him what his specific issues are & then see if there was something (if anything) the company could do to accomodate. Finally, I would let him know that the goals & suggestions for improvement still stand & it's in his best interest to comply if he wants to see wage increases - let alone continued employment (because job performance matters) - in the future. Good luck!

mwild31 · October 2003

Down the middle - I responded the way I did because I think going forward with the increase eliminates the emotionalism of the situation - because any increase should be based on job performance & if it was warranted at the time of the review due to the job performance and company/market conditions - it should be warranted now - even with the employee's emotional response to the amount. There's nothing - legally - that says you have to - but when you don't go forward - my question would be, was it (wage increase) really warranted in the first place? Just my thoughts x:-)

Don D · October 2003

MWild; I'm getting worried about you responding to your own posts. When one is an indentation of one's own self, I think we need to call a meeting of some sort to discuss the implications.

TN HR · October 2003

I tend to agree with Don and San Francisco to a certain extent. The more pressing dilema if this was on my plate would be the culture that seems to be breeding. You mentioned "entitlement mentality".....YEP! Sounds like it's alive and well.

I would treat his refusal to sign his evaluation as border-line insubordination. His signature does not mean concurrence, it simply means he has been presented with an assessment of his performance and a review session has taken place.

Gene

Rockie · October 2003

I totally agree with those who said to process the raise and go forward. Hold the employee accountable for the improvements as outlined and if he refuses...start the disciplinary process.

Don...I believe the French version of this is called "Pissoir" (Pees Swa). I am sure I did not spell the French correctly, but it sounds so much better than what it is. (I refuse to get into a "Pees Swa" contest with you!)

HRCathy · October 2003

My Plant Manager does not want to process the raise. I'm not sure who is winning this contest at this point. I just know it is not me. So, I am just going to note the specifics of the review meeting to his file and advise the supervisor that the discipline process will start if this employee does not follow expectations listed on his review. I will also copy those notes to the ee so he knows what is going in his file. The review did warrant a raise, the ee is good at what he does, he has some attendance issues (lates), and his attitude is not in the "outstanding" category. This guy just thinks he is worth more. Aren't we all???

mwild31 · October 2003

Hi Don - as I was typing, the other post from Down the middle came through - which is why I sent a second post.

Pork · October 2003

HRCathy: Given the evaluation and raise has been processed to the HR arena. I would continue the flow of the documentation and approved actions including the raise. I would not get involved unless the ee or the supervisor/operational manager ask for my assistance in the preparation of an action plan. Knowing me, I might discuss my thoughts with the manager and offer my help if he/she wishes. Otherwise, butt out of departmental business.

PORK

HRCathy · October 2003

Thanks, Pork. I tried to stay out of it, but was not successful. I ended up speaking to the employee. I informed him that even if he does not accept the raise, he will still be accountable for everything stated in the review. He can either do the job at the same rate of pay or he can do the job with the raise, his choice. I allowed him to explain, I told him that he had the power to make the necessary changes, to talk to his supervisor on how to go about making the changes and he signed the review and accepted the raise. I spoke to the manager and told him about the meeting with the employee and they are both going to work on their issues. This company is small, and the managers, while technically advanced, lack intepersonal skills. I guess that gives me job security. So I wear a referee shirt most of the time. Thanks everyone for your input.

Steve McElfresh · October 2003

HRCathy,

I'd like to discuss an aside to your query (by the by, I agree with the advice that the increase should go through. Salary changes are not at employee discretion, nor do managers get to withhold them just because they get their knickers in a knot. More important, this manager will lose the moral high ground in demanding the performance he needs. But you already know all of that).

My aside: you have noted a couple of times that this person was not rated highly on "attitude". I would urge you to consider changing your rating dimension at some point to "teamwork", "contributions outside the specific job", "support for the others/department" or whatever else might be appropriate. But not "attitude". I realize that this may appear pure semantics, but I assure you it is not.

When employees are unhappy, and their unhappiness is affecting their group or the work of others, I try to be clear that they are welcome to whatever attitude or feelings they wish. However, they are strictly accountable for how their behavior affects others, and it is that behavior that must change. After painful experience, I realized that talking about someone's "attitude" often takes the conversation astray, as it goes to needless discussion about either Reality or Principle -- Reality: whether they are correct about the perceptions leading to the feelings; Principle: whether they have a right to their feelings. Further, challenging someone on the "attitudue" is rather like yelling at someone to RELAX. More important, it keeps us off the real issue: what are they doing that gets in the way of the group/department/etc. performing well?

Employees can feel, have an attitude if you will, as they damn well please. They just can't inflict it harmfully on others. Ironically, once they (and their supervisor) become clear about that, what often follows is a good discussion about . . . their attitude, since changing it is no longer a job requirement and they don’t need to be defensive. Instead, change becomes possible because the supervisor and employee can talk, talk without attack/defense. Of course, many people's attitudes won't change. No problem. Just so long as it does not affect the work.

By the by, there is another equal or greater downside to including "attitude" as an performance evaluation dimension. It is one of the most common dimensions for managers to mis-use, whether by inexperience or intention, creating all sorts of other problems.

Now, anybody need a Friday afternoon attitude adjustment?

Warm regards,

Steve Mac

Steve McElfresh, PhD
Principal & Founder
HR Futures
408.605.1870

marc · October 2003

Doc Steve,

You have made a great point about the attitude perspective. It is sort of like leaning to one side or the other a few degrees and getting a completely different perspective. Sounds like a good strategy, I am going to incorporate this into my toolbox.

HRCathy · October 2003

Thanks for your perspective Steve. After reading your post, I re-read the review form and the spirit of the form is exactly what you are talking about. The ranking is asking whether the employee works well with others, motivates others, and how much supervision he/she needs. I should just change the heading from "attitude" to maybe "teamwork".

MrCreosote · October 2003

I agree with Steve and have been in a similar position recently. The rating category was "Displays an 'extra mile' attitude." The problems are that that will mean different things to different people, and more importantly, the attitude displayed is not the same as the behavior. If somebody smiles and says that they will help me out it really doesn't matter unless they actually help me out.
I would also avoid "teamwork" for similar reasons. It means different things to different people. I work with a VP who uses the term a lot, but to her it means subservience to her wishes. If you disagree with her you are not a team player.
Steve's other suggestions are outstanding. Use something that describes actions or behaviors.

MOMANUFACTURER · October 2003

I have a question that goes along with this...What if an ee gets a minimal raise and it causes them to actually bring home less each pay period because of taxes. Would you then force the ee to accept the raise?

marc · October 2003

I haven't heard a 'bracket creep' question in a while.

In my opinion, yes, you make them take the raise. Income taxes are too complex for an employer to take into consideration for most ees. You will often find consideration given to the top level management for the various types of pay and incentives that they get, but rarely does anything happen for the rank and file (which normally includes the HR staff). Two different ees, making the same rate of pay, can have extremely different tax situations - they have to solve those issues individually.

mwild31 · October 2003

Hi Momanufacturer - First, I don't think it's a question of 'forcing' an employee to take a raise - an increase is warranted by performance and company/market conditions. Second, how the increase affects the individual is interesting, but it's not my concern as a business - I need to pay my folks appropriately. That being said, as an HR person I would recommend that the employee take greater advantage of our wonderful 401(k) plan - with T. Rowe Price or take part in one of the AFLAC products we have - that decreases their tax liabilty x;-)

Rob S · October 2003

Bracket Creep -

I have not looked that closely at the tax tables, but as I remember, when you go into a new bracket, your first dollars earned stay the same tax rate.

Quick example with very fake numbers:
0-99 get taxed at 10%
100-499 get taxed at 15%
500-100 get taxed at 20%

There is a not a magic number where you will actually make more $ have less dollars at the end of the year.

Rob S.

EE does not want a raise

Comments