EE does not want a raise
HRCathy
97 Posts
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?
Comments
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.
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
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!
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
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!)
PORK
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
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.
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.
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.
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.