It's just to try to start dialogue really, if it were me I would want to know if he'd been told to seek Jim or Ted's input by a previous manager, for example, or if Jim/Ted had caught a big mistake and told him to run stuff past them in future. So it might not necessarily be a confidence thing by this point, more of a 'i was told to do it like this' thing.
With decision making, it's rare a job is life or death (working in medicine aside), so when I've had someone agonising over a decision and becoming essentially paralysed by it, I've reminded them of it. Plus most decisions can be undone or changed.
I have never actually done a full annual review in all the time I've been at work, not even jumping through the hoops, and it's never made a jot of difference. In the short time I've been a team lead I never completed one either, though that's really because they kept changing the system so it was never necessary. I spent most of the time saying "ok this will make no difference to pay or promotion, but if you set X as a goal maybe we could get some funding to get you training in X based on that".
Yeah, I'm fortunate in that I'm trusted to do the best thing for the company in my job and my manager is mostly hands off. So I don't have to run everything I decide past him.
I've done them from both sides. Neither is much fun, but I ask my direct report for feedback and he does give it, and honestly.
As best I can tell from case law, yes but tactfully, and usually part of pre employment stuff. Also, if an employee choose not to tell an employer, they aren't protected by disability discrimination laws, as an employer must be reasonably aware of said disability.
I've done _bits_ of them but they've never followed through to the end point. My own managers have quite blatantly said that they didn't make any difference since I was in my 20s. It made me so anxious before I properly appreciated that that I want to make sure everyone knows it.
My current system is performance related but we're in the process of reviewing it. Even if I work really hard this until April, my manager doesn't like given large payrises (he told me during the last review).
I can say that I've literally never known anyone get a performance related pay rise. They may get promoted, which can mean a pay rise, but that will be because a space needs filling and their manager picked them for whatever reason - usually they've been there the longest. There are annual standard pay rises but they're not related to performance.
Seriously, your company needs a proper formal task management system and methodology if emails like that are going back and forward, and if it exists, people need to learn how to use it and also that they _must_ use it. They are supposed to mitigate against problems in these situations and while they might not always they are a lot better than emails.
Yes, this. An annual review shouldn't be used to raise surprise issues, nor as a stick to beat people with (I had a line manager tell me my performance was shit, when I had been seriously ill, all of which was documented with HR.). It can look at points of improvement though, which this might be.
you can ask whether there are any adjustments that are needed or whether there is anything they think you need to know. You can't say anything that is potentially discriminatory 'you seem a bit spectrummy' 'are yuo sure you're well enough to do this job, in your condition' etc- they may have disclosed to HR but not you, they may not want to disclose, you may be totally wrong on what is going on with them
there are. But there are also tendencies in organisations to pile on colleagues who don't quite fit including confirmation bias around behaviours, lots of people are rubbish about communicating prioritisation, people who are not delivering (or feel they are not delivering) get defensive and can claim others are being unfairly demanding.... there are all sorts of things that might be going on. And these things are never EVER one way- there are two people in any communication
You may find that some of these issues magically melt away once there's an actual structure involved. I've worked with perfectly nice people who've been terrible cuntbags when dealing with things ad hoc. It's not their job to know when people they're dealing with are overworked (how can they?) it's a systemic issue. One of the main points of a process is to reassure people that what they want is on the list and give them an idea of when it is likely to be done.
How is that bad? Does that not make it easier for them?
