Dear Joan:
I am a reader of your weekly column, and was hoping that you could provide guidance on the situation described below.

I work for a Federal government agency, with a pay-for-performance system. Under the system, an employee's twelve-month performance is compared to their work peer group.

The performance is then rated and assigned a pay category. The pay categories are as follows: Category 1 - 6% raise and a lump sump payment; Category 2 - 4% raise, and a lump sum payment; Category 3 gets a 2% raise. A grading curve/scale is strictly followed, with 25% of the employees being put in Category 1, 50% in Category 2, and 25% in Category 3. Supervisors are instructed to slot their employees into these three categories, and the percentages in each category must be followed.

In 2006, I worked 7 of 12 months in the evaluation period. The other 5 months were spent on maternity leave, with a combination of FMLA leave, sick leave, and leave without pay. Thus, my performance was ranked in Category 3, because I didn't have as many accomplishments as my other colleagues who worked for the entire year. Thus, the system appears to have a disparate impact on employees who are gone for an extended time, such as on maternity leave or other FMLA leave.

In the past, my ratings have been good, so I feel that the rating was unfair. I think my performance should be based on the context in which it was performed. I am concerned because this system is used in our entire agency, and I know that others have faced a similar situation with similar rating outcomes.

I plan on filing a grievance with our Union, and was possibly thinking of a more serious action of obtaining an attorney. I would sincerely appreciate your guidance on this matter. Thank you for you time and consideration.

Answer:
I think you are only seeing this situation from a foot off the ground, when a 20,000-foot view is needed. Since your manager is forced to compare your work to your peers’ for the entire year, how can she justify giving you a higher rating/raise, when you were only there a little over a half year?

Because she is forced to use a bell curve, she would certainly want to put her top performers, who worked all year, into the higher categories. A 2 percent raise for seven months seems more than fair to me.

I have a hard time seeing how this could be grounds for a grievance or lawsuit, when you indicate that everyone else seems to be treated the same way when they are out for a significant part of the year.

And since your performance review and salary are only an assessment of this year’s work, it has no connection to how well you did last year. Because you were a good performer last year (and no doubt, for years before that) your rating and raise will likely bounce back and you will be back in the 6 percent category next year.

In fact, how would you feel next year, after turning in a stellar performance all year long, if someone who worked only seven months got a six percent raise, knocking you into the four or two percent category?

I agree with the supervisor. She did what she thought was right—to portion out the most money to the people who were doing a good job all year long.

Joan Lloyd is an executive coach, management consultant, facilitator and professional trainer/speaker.  Email your question to Joan at info@joanlloyd.com.  Joan Lloyd & Associates, (800) 348-1944, Visit www.JoanLloyd.com © Joan Lloyd & Associates, Inc.