I am curious as to the policy of other banks on allowing their employees a copy of their yearly performance appraisal. I have always asked for one and received one when working for one of the larger banks. Now I am employed at a smaller community bank and the subject came up in a training session with managers and department heads on performance appraisals. The Personnel Director mentioned that the bank attorneys had advised her that these were bank property and that an employee could view theirs at any time, but should not be given a copy.

I give a copy to each of my employees after we've discussed it and it is signed. Since it includes goals, improvement opportunities, etc. it's important that they have it to refer to during the year. Plus, we've now combined the annual appraisal with their job description so it's more important than ever that they have a copy.

Anything you ask an employee to sign should be available to the employee - what's the purpose of the secrecy I'm wondering?

No secrecy...I guess the fact that we live in such a litiguous society could be the underlying factor...but of course personnel files could always be subpoenaed by an employee who was terminated for a performance issue that does not resolve itself. I just found it odd...I actually have copies of 27 years of my own performance appraisals and I do glance over recent ones from time to time to look for opportunites for personal growth and development. Just curious if other institutions follow a similar policy as mine.

Quote:

---

The Personnel Director mentioned that the bank attorneys had advised her that these were bank property and that an employee could view theirs at any time, but should not be given a copy.

---

I would like to see that in writing from the attorneys. We have always given the employee a copy of what they signed. To use the arguement that the document is "bank property" is ludicrous. In that case, loan documents belong to the bank, yet the customer recieves a copy.

an former employer told us the same...bank property and they can't have a copy. Biggest issue they had was that an employee would receive a bad review, have a copy and go home and read & reread and stew over it. Dumbest reason I ever heard...(and I let my staff have copies, never once was an issue).

I'm a firm believer that staff should have ample time to read the review and preaper for it. I generally give to them a week before the review and ask them to come prepared to discuss it as well as any other issuies they may have.

Sounds like a few of these banks have some deep seated management problems if they are afraid of their employees possessing a copy of their performance evaluations. I never had to worry about my poor performers "stewing" very long over a bad appraisal - if you get my drift.

Since my bank pays me, essentially, to be paranoid (hey, how are you going to bust fraud if you assume the best of everyone?), I'll chime in with this observation:

I find the "bank property, you can't have a copy" approach SUSPICIOUS. If a door-to-door salesman wanted me to sign off on something having an impact on my financial future but said I couldn't keep a copy of it, I'd push him off my doorstep and slam the door. An employer who does the same has potentially descended to the that crooked salesman's level, and is not entitled to my trust.

I believe HR procedures should always be designed in light of the recognition that there ARE bad bosses, as well as corrupt organizations, and that employees have no way of knowing for sure they're not working for either.

From an employee's point of view, what's to stop a boss from doctoring an evaluation after it's been signed? You only have to leave a little blank space, and you've got a perfect opportunity to take even the most positive appraisal in the bank's history and add a paragraph beginning with the word "However . . ." Boom, there's your instant excuse to retaliate against, for example, the "non-team player" who reported financial irregularities to Internal Audit. The employee then has no evidence that the "However" paragraph wasn't there all along.

Could an employee also alter an evaluation? Yes, and then the competent authority (including a jury, if it comes to that) has to weigh the credibility of each side. That's how the legal system works. Not perfect, but better than giving one side all the power.

All power will eventually be abused by someone, somewhere. Procedures should limit power to protect all the parties involved.

Aside from all of the good reasons listed above, be aware that some state laws require the employer to allow the employee to view his/her personnel file. I am aware of at least 2 states that require it, and there are probably more. You may wish to look to your state laws for some direction.

along the same lines...if you give an employee a written warning, do you allow them to have a copy? We do not at my bank, which seems so wrong to me. The written warning contains the criteria to rectify the situation. Unless the employee has a copy to refer to, how can you expect them to monitor themselves as to if they are complying with what they were told?

I also wonder if there are employers that worry that an employee is going to take a highly positive performance appraisal and use it to go shopping for another job. I'm not in HR, so I have no idea how an prospective employee who hands an interviewer their last performance review would be perceived, but maybe it's a concern to some?

Quote:

---

along the same lines...if you give an employee a written warning, do you allow them to have a copy?

---

Absolutely. Most of the time it ends up in the shred bin but that's their choice. I want to make sure they have a copy of the expectations needed to improve and the consequences if they don't. I, personally, would be very suspect of a company that wouldn't let you keep a copy. What else are they hiding?

My eyebrow would be raised. In my former life working in healthcare, I had an interim CEO that told me of something so crazy it makes sense. An outfit he used to work for made all leadership roles sign their resignation and leave the date blank when the accept that position. If the organization wanted rid of them the employee would rcv a call and was notified that their resignation had been accepted.
Apparenlty it was legal due to some private ownership or reservation provision??
I would suspect they are ultimatly avoiding something.

We give employees a copy. For all the reasons previously discussed.