Peer input for annual performance reviews - is this a risk to the peers?

[Innocent_Bystander]

A clse relative works in the UK for a UK arm of a multinational.

 

I know that, for fear of litigation, many companies will not provide any reference other than confirming the person worked for them from XX/XX/XX to YY/YY/YY, in such-and-such a position. This company is really risk averse. does exactly that.

 

What has happened now, is that in the annual performance reviews, the person being reviewed is expected to approach their peers - via an online tool - for a peer appraisal, which is then recorded and used as part of his review.

 

Question 1) What is the personal risk to someone providing a peer review and including words that could be (mis) construed as critical orf the employee?

 

Question 2) Given his employer's attitude to not giving any references that go further than confirming employment, how does this sit with his employer expecting employees to potentially place themselves in the firing line by providing what are, essentially, references?

 

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

Another spur of the road to hell paved with good intentions. I presume that the sort of thing sought is whether the person is that team player they claim to be and whether or not they took ownership of a task or it was a group effort. This is supposed to stop people underplaying their part in any success and to cut down on the bull and create checks and balances but as you say, if someone takes something said to task it could get very nasty with both the employer and the reviewer in trouble.

Employment laws very different in other countries so the people in the glass edifice may not realise they have created a problem. Relative should speak to colleagues and as a group point out to managers that the request for feedback is full of potential risks and they would all like some kind of written guarantee indemnifying them against a claim for defamation should someone get a dodgy review. As this is unlikely to ever be given the whole thing will probably be put on the back burner until that decision is made sometime never.

[unclebulgaria67]

A clse relative works in the UK for a UK arm of a multinational.

 

I know that, for fear of litigation, many companies will not provide any reference other than confirming the person worked for them from XX/XX/XX to YY/YY/YY, in such-and-such a position. This company is really risk averse. does exactly that.

 

What has happened now, is that in the annual performance reviews, the person being reviewed is expected to approach their peers - via an online tool - for a peer appraisal, which is then recorded and used as part of his review.

 

Question 1) What is the personal risk to someone providing a peer review and including words that could be (mis) construed as critical orf the employee?

 

Question 2) Given his employer's attitude to not giving any references that go further than confirming employment, how does this sit with his employer expecting employees to potentially place themselves in the firing line by providing what are, essentially, references?

 

Thanks

 

Many employers have been doing this for years.

 

1) There is a risk of course and it is up the managers to deal with it. If you are a line manager of a team of people, you can sometimes strike unlucky, if you get a bunch of moaners, who will provide negative feedback on anything and everything. It is up to each employee whether they manage people or not, to make sure they get on well with everyone and do everything by the book, with full notes taken. I would suggest that anyone in this situation, insists that they get a full record of all feedack, so they can deal with it in a professional way. Don't let any negative or even positive feedback just be forgotten. With negative feedback, write out a list of actions to properly address this, as much is possible. With positive feedback that can be useful as well.

 

2). The question should be asked about how the feedback will be used and nothing should be used without the consent of the person giving the feedback and the consent of the subject of the feedback. It would be quite wrong of any employer to use negative feedback as part of internal/external referencing without the person concerned having had a chance to address it.

[steampowered]

My employer does exactly the same thing, as do most other professional firms. They will only ever give a reference that confirms job title and date of employment; yet run 180-degree and 360-degree feedback systems asking people to give feedback on their managers.

 

In theory, I think that feedback given as part of a performance review process is capable of being defamatory. This would basically mean an untrue statement which diminishes the reputation of the person you are making an allegation about. As long as you avoid making any specific allegations which are untrue, you should be fine. For example they could not really claim that a statement that find a particular person rude and unpleasant to work with is defamatory, as that is a matter of opinion rather than an untrue fact, but if you claimed that a particular person stole something that could be defamatory.