PULSE : Perf & Goals process « Far below expectations »
End 2015, during the presentation of the PULSE project to the AIRBUS European Committee (SEWC), Management showed objectives on « transparency and equity » towards the employees.
Then, during the European negotiation (**) on the variable part for Band 4 (prelude to the introduction of this new process, introducing collective objectives and stakeholder feedback), Management promised the end of the budgetary envelope diktat and removal of calibration with the final decision left up to the direct Manager.
What is left today of these declarations of good intention? After the first evaluation campaign performed on the basis of this new process via the new tool “Workday”, the picture is distressing:
- A budgetary constraint displayed as of the beginning of the evaluation process,
- Evaluation of 2017 performance based on objectives, that for many were input in October 2017,
- Positive feedback from stakeholders frequently minimized whereas the slightest negative feedback is exploited to lower the rating,
- Managers who declare to their collaborator:
“I put you in cluster 2 “below expectations” because I received a verbal order to have certain collaborators in this cluster” (Ah ! Karl Friedrich GAUSS (1777-1855) if you knew how far your research has led…)
The CFDT would like to remind Management and the Managers that “Forced Ranking” is illegal in France (Arrêt de Cassation, March 2013).
“For me your objectives have been reached, I see you in cluster 3 “at expected level” and a bonus at 100%; but as I do not have enough budget after review with the N+2, I put you down to 95%, so cluster 2. But don’t worry, it doesn’t mean anything; it is just a side effect of the tool… “
- And worse yet: some employees on long-term sick leave, present only a few weeks over the 2017 exercise, classified “far below expectations”!!!But this could be an error linked to the (too) rapid implementation of Perf & Goals?
In spite of the good intentions shown during the launch of PULSE, Management has implemented a new P&D that is not better than the last one. In the end it is the same grinding machine with new colors to look ‘more DIGITAL’.
The notation “below expectations” has replaced “partially reached” from P&D with a psychological and legal connotation that is much more negative.
Has Management fully measured the psychological impact of a grading “below expectations” for employees that feel they have reached their objectives and contributed to the success of the company? Have they also evaluated the difficulty for the Manager to announce to an employee that his note has gone down whereas his performance is recognized as being satisfactory
For the CFDT, Management has once more missed an opportunity. PULSE could have been the occasion to implement a more human tool that develops individuals and reinforces the notion of teamwork. A loyal discussion and a fair evaluation should intervene outside of all financial aspect that should be able to be discussed in a second time.