Penalty for late performance review?

Caroliso · November 2005

We have annual performance reviews that take place over a few months... first nonsupervisory, then supervisory, then sr. executives.

I got tired of chasing after folks for reviews, and this year said, no performance review, no salary review. The salary review process starts about a month after performance reviews are due, and are implemented about two months after.

Of course someone has just informed me that they won't have it in by that date. And I'm really torn, so I thought I'd ask folks either what you would do, or what your own policy is.

I'd prefer to give an extension based on the person's reason and them getting it in soon after the deadline, but I'm worried about doing it for one and possibly getting back to a situation where I'm extending the deadline for others and it's no longer a deadline. And, I hate to penalize the employee when it was maybe the supervisor's poor scheduling that is the cause.

Our policy has always been that you need to have an evaluation on file to be considered for a salary increase, it's just this year that I put in a firm earlier deadline.

Help!

POPEYE · November 2005

I know you know this, but your not in that sinking ship by yourself. This has been and will continue to be a problem everywhere. Completing and submitting evaluations on time is an essential function of their job. If they can't get it done on time, they should be subjected to disciplinary action just like an hourly EE would be for not performing their job.

As you stated, all of your Sups need to be held to the same standard. Don't cut one some slack and not another. We try to give enough of a window so that we have enough time to receive the late ones before final numbers are crunched.

Let me assure you that it won't take but one written warning or suspension for the Sups to start getting them in on time.

HRCalico · November 2005

Caroliso,

Thankfully reviews aren't too much of a problem at my current job. However, at my last job, I had one supervisor who was literally several months' behind when I came on board. (We conducted reviews based on date of hire, so new ones went out each month.) There was a policy in place that was absolutely not being enforced - I believe a week after the due date, a warning went out, and if it wasn't done two weeks after that, the supervisor received an unpaid five day suspension. We put the supervisor on a schedule saying all reviews had to be "done" by X date (giving him several weeks). Wouldn't you know he pushed the envelope and had two that he had turned into his supervisor but not discussed with the employee, and because we didn't define "done" as being "completely completed", we let it go. (I was furious about that one - give me a break!) We also did not allow pay raises to go through until the review was done, which created quite a problem because we were grant funded and sometimes the grants would be closed out by the time the raise came through.

By the time I left, reviews were seldom late. I did send out reminder e-mails and memos, and I was willing to enforce the policy we had (my exec. director reluctantly supported me).

I think you're on the right track with what you said above. Put in a deadline, communicate it, and stick to it. You're absolutely right that it's most likely the supervisor's poor scheduling. If I were in your shoes, I might not get out the cattle prod this year, but for next year, pick consequences (like unpaid suspensions! It gets their attention), make sure you communicate it before hand (We've historically had difficulty getting reviews in by the deadline, and they need to be completed in order for the salary review to happen. Therefore, if you do not have all your reviews completed, X will happen.) and be prepared to make an example out of someone. This is a case where being nice just doesn't work.

Another tactic that may help is providing training for the people conducting reviews on how to review. We have found that the people who understand the process actually enjoy it, so we have tried to make it as easy and understandable as possible. My president doesn't believe in grading people, but wants a discussion about performance. We have used the same review form for many years, but finally this year, I sat down with him and asked what answers he was looking for on each question, typed it up, and gave it to the supervisors. It is much easier for them when they have a guide, and it causes much less frustration from passing reviews back and forth trying to get them approved.

Caroliso · November 2005

Thanks Popeye and Cali for your responses.
One thing I'm wondering is about the penalties. My current approach is that the evaluated employee's salary increase doesn't go through, hoping people will get moving if they realize their staff are affected. Of course the other side is it could penalize the employee for a supervisor's poor habits, and if the supe doesn't particularly care, the penalty doesn't provide the desired motivation.
Anybody have thoughts? Penalize the supervisor or withhold the employee's raise?
I loved the penalty mentioned of a 5-day unpaid suspension for the supervisor, but I'm dreaming if I think I could start that here. We *so* don't deal with the accountability issue very well, and will have to start small.

atrimble · November 2005

You could start by deducting a percentage of the recommended increase in pay for each period the review is late. If you give a supervisor a "good reason" break, any time past your extension cuts into THEIR raise. For example, supervisor gives "mom died" excuse, so you give a two week extension. Two weeks expire and you still don't have the evaluation. Inform them that they just lost a half percent of their own raise, and if you don't have the eval in the next ten days (2 wks), they lose another half percent AND the employee loses a half percent. Make the supervisors accountable from the bottom up as well as the top down.

(Not that I've seen this work, but I've heard it discussed and I'm about ready to recommend it. I was due my evaluation in August, finally got the raise at the end of September, but we STILL haven't discussed the actual paperwork... of course my supervisor has the commonest excuse - not enough time.)

<<Bitter Queen (my apologies)

VS · November 2005

I've been through many different scenarios with this, as I am sure we all have! It's a problem that will never go away. Where I currently work, the evaluator does not receive his/her increase until the reviews are done. It doesn't solve the problem that the employee is still "suffering" the consequences of poor management. We have tried to put this "essential function" of the job in their review, but there are always reasons as to why the evaluator should not be penalized....I have recommended, but have not been successful in implementing, is to inform the evaluator that for every day the eval is late, X % or $ amt. will be deducted from that evaluator's increase and put back in the pool, OR, given to the employee whose evaluation is late!!!! I still like the idea!

MB1004 · November 2005

When I first started at our company, we had supervisors that were months behind and some who just didn't even do the reviews. I did training, sent memos, email reminders, called them, etc. to try and get them to do their reviews. It helped, but didn't completley solve the problem. The next year, I implemented a policy that for every day you were late on a review, your annual increase would be that many days late. So if a Sup had 10 reviews to do over the year, and he was a combined total of 35 days late, HIS increase then came 35 days after it was due. Works pretty well! I rarely have any supervisors late anymore...in fact, a lot of them turn the reviews in early now.

lorrie · November 2005

I like this idea. Puts the responsibility, and the consequences, right back on the supv.

Crout · November 2005

>Inform them
>that they just lost a half percent of their own
>raise, and if you don't have the eval in the
>next ten days (2 wks), they lose another half
>percent AND the employee loses a half percent.
>Make the supervisors accountable from the bottom
>up as well as the top down.
>
>(Not that I've seen this work, but I've heard it
>discussed and I'm about ready to recommend it.

No wonder you've never seen it work: That's crazy. It would be absolutely unfair to penalize an employee a half percent because his/her supervisor is not getting the eval done on time. Penalize the supervisor, NOT the employee.

HRCalico · November 2005

Yikes, Abby, what a long time to wait! I can see how that might make one bitter. xx(

I was just going to voice agreement with the others on here - hold the supervisor accountable via their raise, and have retro-pay for when the employee has to wait for their raise. Accountability is really tough when you don't have support on it. I would like to stress again training on how to conduct reviews, including encouraging more frequent, informal feedback. I think our supervisors are doing better now that they have the guidelines on how to review.

Trying to get creative, it sounds like this is especially a problem (at least for Caroliso) in part because all reviews hit at the same time (for each level anyway). Is there possibly a "less busy" time of year that you could shift the reviews to? That could help get some of the pressure off, because normal job duties typically can't wait just for reviews. Of course, if you base it on DOH, this doesn't apply.

Caroliso · November 2005

Cali, we have oft discussed changing the time of year we do these, but it gets hung up in the discussion of proximity to salary review and whether there is any other less busy time (there sort of isn't, except for summer, which has its own difficulties).

System · November 2005

Stick to your guns and do not give the supervisor an increase until reviews are completed, signed by the reviewed employee, and submitted. I would further penalize the late supervisor(s) a certain amount per day that they are late. Even though the subordinates of the supervisor are somewhat penalized as well, I can pretty much guarantee that pressure from above AND below will solve the issue. Apply the amount penalized against the supervisor towards something like a gift ceretificate for lunch (or something similar) for the subordinates who were waiting patiently for their procrastinating supervisor to do his/her job. I have little patience for mgrs and sups who claim they have no time to complete reviews. My answer to that is "then you have no business being in a managerial capacity" That usually ends the conversation.
Good luck.

SamanthaQ · November 2005

I did the same thing Caroliso. I put in firm deadlines as well. I have more tolerance for someone who tells me they aren't going to get it done on time rather than someone who doesn't communicate at all and I find out they aren't done and have to call and prod further. If they can at least communicate and negotiate a new date with me then I'm open to granting a few more days because I generally pad the schedule a bit to account for when things like that happen.

Gillian3 · November 2005

I agree. Supervisors and managers are the problem and should bear the penalty. Your company is already being penalized. One of my opinions, after almost 40 years of messing with this stuff, is that late reviews are one of the primary causes of morale issues, especially when the employee is penalized. Those who are not responsible for the delay never should be. Employee increases should be retroactive to the due date, because if they are not, the employee is being penalized for the supervisors ignorance.

AJ SPHR · November 2005

Sorry, I may be the dissenting opinion here, but I don't think there is truly a darn thing you can do about this that will get the reviews done both on time AND have them be meaningful without the edict coming from the CEO's mouth. I spent a lot of time trying to do the same things others have done but finally realized that it wasn't fair to penalize the employee (e.g. make their increase late) if the supervisor was late and to penalize the supervisor simply rewards the supervisor for getting it done on time, not getting it done right.

Where I now work, the CEO cares about having reviews done on time and having them done right. That message very quickly and easily spreads throughout the management staff so it never becomes a problem for me.

If you're in a situation as the original poster is, I think you need to start at the top and sell him or her on the importance of having performance reviews completed on time and in a meaningful way. The payback on employee morale and performance is unendless and the positive impact on productivity is what will help sell the top guy.

If you can't get that buy-in and support from the top, then IMO, you should stop trying and focus on something else where you can really make an impact.

System · November 2005

As a member of Procrastinators Anonymous (well, I haven't actually joined yet, but I'm going to as soon as I have the time -- if I can find the form ... and a stamp) I can tell you AJ is right. These supervisors won't care until their boss makes them care.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

pork1 · November 2005

GANG: I have fought this battle for so long and tried ever method mentioned above. The CEO/GM is the answer, the company management team will do what the BOSS checks. I love the present Boss of this company, but he has not given a written review in 6 years and there was nothing I could do but fight the managers. Guess what, I lost ever battle.

There are no battles anymore, we have one rule no pay increase until it is attached to a completed evaluation, at review period, twice a year. I have just kicked off our year-end review period and my worry and stress is ended. What gets in will be processed when it gets in! It is no longer my concern! I am not in the direct chain of authority and my attempts to interceed have caused this old HR wounds and torn ego. We in HR no longer worry about those things we can not control. When a ee calls we refer them to their supervisor and manager. Guess what, action happens, when the ee gets mad enough. All my preaching simply got lost in the whirlwind.

I recommend you put the program out there and administer to it as you ca, don't fight battles you can not win. Now when I get to be the GM you can bet that this area of concern will get handled without a lot of discussion! Until then I will go to bed and sleep well for I know that HR has done its job and has the program out there for each manager/supervisor to execute and become real heros!

PORK

Balloonman1 · November 2005

You identified one of the problems that I had at my last company, the reviews are tied to anniversary date, so they are coming all the time. How we corrected this, and it really did make a huge difference, we did a 90 day review on all new hires, then reviews were moved depending on hired date to a fiscal quarter. All reviews were done, 1/1, 4/1, 7/1, & 10/1. That way it was easier, they were given a packet on month before and given 3 weeks to complete it. That gave me a week to sit down with the employee, conduct review implement the increase. I allowed myself a little flex time, so that I had until their next check came out after the beginning of the quarter to have their review done.
Trying to keep reviews going out throughout the year is a pain in the but as a company gets larger, doing it 4 times a year made life much easier for all.
My $0.02 worth,
The Balloonman

pork1 · November 2005

>You identified one of the problems that I had at
>my last company, the reviews are tied to
>anniversary date, so they are coming all the
>time. How we corrected this, and it really did
>make a huge difference, we did a 90 day review
>on all new hires, then reviews were moved
>depending on hired date to a fiscal quarter.
>All reviews were done, 1/1, 4/1, 7/1, & 10/1.
>That way it was easier, they were given a packet
>on month before and given 3 weeks to complete
>it. That gave me a week to sit down with the
>employee, conduct review implement the increase.
> I allowed myself a little flex time, so that I
>had until their next check came out after the
>beginning of the quarter to have their review
>done.
>Trying to keep reviews going out throughout the
>year is a pain in the but as a company gets
>larger, doing it 4 times a year made life much
>easier for all.
>My $0.02 worth,
>The Balloonman

balloonman: In my thought, you are way to involved, but then that might be job security for you in that you are doing the job of the other management team members and for that your position might just be kept around when crunch time comes. If we let the Balloo0nman go, who will insure the "damn evaluations" will get done. Most likely evaluations and the cost is one of those HR programs, like advertisements will go by the way side when the money crunch time comes.

Interviews, compensation changes, and implementation should all be in the hands of management. With you doing their jobs, when something goes wrong, they can always blame it on you!

May we all experience this beautiful day made on God's world for us to enjoy.

PORK

VS · November 2005

And there's the key! The man/woman at the top has to CARE! In my career, I have only worked for one company that does care. So you keep pushing, knowing it won't change. However, you can't give up for the employee. They are the victims. Our current program requires reviews to be signed off on before the managers receive their increase. That works, but these managers make so much more than their subordinates that their 3% increase and delay has no real impact. So a number of our people continue to have late reviews, but at least their increases are retro. Reviewers should be penalized the first year and if it happens the following year, their increase is forfeited until we see how they perform the following year. And if that doesn't have an impact, it's time to hit the bonus in a big way! But until the top enforces and just not makes a decree, the battle will continue. Hmmm, wonder if we can penalize the top?????

MB1004 · November 2005

I agree with everyone that you have to have top management buy off on the importance of reviews. I also failed to mention that our GM delivered the message that the supervisor would be the one penalized for not turning it in on time, I just simply track and enforce the policy. They get the review packets a month before the due date so there's not a lot of pencil whipping. No, it's not perfect and every once in awhile they are late, but it's better than letting months go by without giving the ee their review and dealing with the ramifications of them being upset. We also give review training to anyone who does evaluations and until we're comfortable with them doing a review by themselves, they pass it off to their manager or HR for review. It works well for us b/c we're not too big, but obviously you have to do what works for your company and culture.

HRinGA · November 2005

I finally got my president on board. Every month I send out a notice of late evaluations to every department head. Everyone sees how late everyone else is. It ruffled a few feathers at first, but my two worst departments are now my best. Nobody wants to be on the list.
I also emphasize the financial impact a late review has. If the raise is 2 months late, then there is going to be a financial impact on salaries for the month and they will have to explain why they are over budget. (we do that every month as well). That seems to have helped as well.

Penalty for late performance review?

Comments