Black-on-Black Work Relationships Are Often Impacted by White Perceptions and Interference

I’ve been blogging about how the White media has been speculating about Sen. Barack Obama’s relationship with Black voters. It’s been:

--Is he Black enough?
--Is he too educated to appeal to Blacks?
--Will Blacks abandon their loyalty to the Clintons for him?
--Will Blacks vote for him simply because he’s Black?
--Blacks shouldn’t vote for him simply because he’s Black because it will show how far the country has come.

It boils down to White analysis of Black relationships, which is not something that’s confined to politics. In many workplaces around the country, there is also speculation about Black on Black relationships. There is often analysis of Black on Black relationships. And, there’s sometimes interference in Black on Black relationships...

particularly if one of the Blacks involved is a supervisor or manager.

I’ve heard many complaints from Black managers about having their authority and decisions questioned by White counterparts based on how their relationship with Black subordinates and staff is perceived by Whites.

For instance, when Black managers have Black subordinates, they report feeling pressured to have a distant relationship with their workers and to be strict with them. Specifically, they’ve felt that Whites perceived they would be easy on staff, let them goof off, allow the quality of work to slip, and would allow a party atmosphere in the workplace out of need to show same race preferential treatment or loyalty. They felt that Whites were just waiting for anything that showed they “favored” Black staff. They also spoke about a feeling of having White staff watch them. By “watch” I am referring to a sense of heightened surveillance of Black managers. I can give you three examples of heightened scrutiny based on race:

(1) I’ve spoken to a Black manager, who was assigned to an office where certain staff (read: Black and Hispanic) were being pigeonholed into performing work that should have been shared with their White counterparts. The White counterparts did not like these assignments, which needed to be performed on a daily basis. Because they didn’t have to do this work, they were free to tackle cases and other duties that significantly improved their performance charts and went a long way in securing them a superior performance evaluation, compared to their minority counterparts. As a result, all of the bonuses for this classification of employees were going to White staff.

This Black manager came in and saw the unfair process and its impact on that classification of employees. She completely revamped the process, so that everyone was performing these duties—as they should based on their job description. Immediately, the White subordinates complained to a White director that she was showing preferential treatment to minorities based on race. But, the issue was that she was balancing out inequity that was established on racial lines, by the former White manager. When Whites didn’t have to perform this work because they complained and had the work removed from their list of duties, it was all good. When the workplace became fair, there was a problem.

The White director immediately sided with the White staff and called the Black manager into a meeting. He asked why she changed the procedure and told her it looked biased because it seemed to favor the Black and Hispanic employees and would hamper the productivity of the other (White) staff, who were excelling.

She explained that it was unfair and potentially illegal to have only Black and Hispanics performing the most mundane portions of their job descriptions, while freeing their White counterparts to do the more significant work, which they all were supposed to be performing. She reminded him of the unfair impact on performance evaluations and bonuses. And, she reminded him that their office was scheduled to be audited on an employee-by-employee basis. Productivity was going to be examined and, if it was found that the office—as a whole—wasn’t pulling its weight, the office might be closed! By freeing up everyone’s time, so that everyone could tackle cases, everyone was able to contribute to the overall productivity in the office. As a result, all of their jobs would be more secure. Finally, she again reminded the director that her decision was the only fair decision to make and she made it within her authority as manager of all those employees.

The White director looked at her for a moment and said, “You’re right. I didn’t think about it that way.” The procedure stayed in place, but those White subordinates began making false claims against this manager out of a desire to retaliate against her because they were forced to do assignments they thought were beneath them.

What struck me the most about this is how easily the White director was lured into questioning fairness. No one was being asked to do anything they weren't supposed to be doing. He should have immediately recognized that there was NO ISSUE!!

(2) I’ve mentioned before that my good friend was a manager at our former place of employment. She was responsible for supervising many staff. At first, her subordinates were both Black and White. Eventually, they were all Black. It wasn’t until her staff were all Black that Whites in the department (including the director) began to raise the issue with the Black manager that she needed to appear “impartial” with her staff.

The problem was that, at the time, all of her staff were Black. She was encouraging her staff to learn new skills and seek out training opportunities, as she always did. And, she was really pushing for them to gain the confidence, skills, and experience needed to improve their job performance and to advance within the company. This caused problems because there were same-level White workers that were already being promised promotions. Since she no longer had White subordinates at that point, any promotions in her section would involve a Black person.

It was at that point that this Black manager was perceived as being a “segregationst” and that she was accused of a lack of “impartiality.” In fact, this Black manager was told that she was perceived as having an inability to “differentiate” between her level and the level of her Black staff. She was accused of being “too friendly” with her staff, possibly because she didn’t intimidate them and they were comfortable speaking to her and working with her.

This manager was instructed to avoid going to lunch with her Black subordinates because it increased the perceptions among staff (White) that she was engaging in favoritism and couldn’t distinguish her management level. This was despite the fact that every White manager in her department and around the company (including in my department) often went to lunch with their White subordinates. Even more telling, some of them engaged in after work activities with their subordinates. But, there was no warning for anyone except this Black manager because the assumption was that Whites would be so-called “impartial” with their staff.

When it was all said and done, this Black manager was stripped of her staff. Her staff were reassigned to work for White managers. They divided them up like splitting poker winnings! The Black manager had her assignments stripped from her and divided among these new managers AND her former subordinates, leaving her with no work and attacks on her employment.

Apparently, some Whites think that only other Whites have the ability to be fair, impartial, and unbiased with their staff. There is no expectation that there will be favoritism on such an egregious level that it must be monitored. This is sometimes an issue for Black managers. Whites show preferential treatment for each other all the time except it’s always justified, when they do it.

(3) I have personal experience with White interference in my relationship with a Black manager. When I was employed in the HR Department at the headquarters of a national bank, my Black supervisor gave me a great year-end performance evaluation because I had a great year. This was in regard to my productivity, professionalism, meeting or exceeding deadlines, being proactive, preparing procedures, working large amounts of overtime, etc.

When my supervisor submitted my review to our White VP, he was told point blank, “I don’t believe this.” He handed the evaluation back to my supervisor and told him to rewrite it “for real” and with more criticism of my job performance. At the time the White VP made this request, he’d only worked at our company for several months. He didn’t know me from Jack and knew nothing about my work effort and performance for the previous year. So, on what basis could he dispute my performance evaluation?

On nothing but race! I can be assured of this because this VP made racist jokes in the HR department, including outside the Director’s office door. I was the only one to tell him that he wasn’t funny and I found his jokes offensive. But, getting to my performance evaluation…

This same VP didn’t question the performance evaluation of a single White person in our office! But, he disputed mine and wanted my review rewritten because he thought my Black manager was trying to "hook me up."

What did my Black supervisor do? He asked me to sit down with him to write criticisms of myself to include in the revised review. He said we wouldn’t include anything “too bad” because it wasn’t true, but just enough to “satisfy him.”

I refused and said that I was going to resign. I started to write my resignation letter. My supervisor had an immediate change of heart and said he would stand up for me and stand by my review. Why?

I asked my supervisor if any part of my review wasn’t true. He said, “No.” I asked, “So, why would you change it.” Then, I came right out said, “If you were White and I was White, this would not be happening.” He said, “You’re right.” He refused to rewrite my review. So, this White VP rewrote it himself. Now, remember, he never worked with me. So, he rewrote it without specifics and made claims that I had the all-famous personality issues that many Black workers are falsely accused of. I was accused of missing deadlines, with no specifics. Other false claims were made. I was told that I should have “anticipated things” that had nothing to do with my job, my job level or anything within my authority. A review was submitted with no input from my immediate supervisor.

I contacted the HR director and challenged this review. The White VP stood by and engaged in more activity that was even more revealing of his racial animus toward me. The VP prepared a 10-question survey asking questions about me (my personality and work) and sent it around to several departments in our company. Talk about disparate treatment! Even White staff called to inform me that the survey was being circulated and to ask me what was going on. I couldn’t believe I was the target of a questionnaire whose sole purpose was to solicit negative commentary on my job performance and to slander me around the company.

But, it didn’t work. The questionnaire confirmed my original performance evaluation. The original evaluation was resubmitted and the fabricated review was stripped from my employee file. I never got an apology, not a bad deal since I don’t value insincere words.

But, the VP got one of his agendas established. He strained the relationship I had with my Black supervisor. From there on out, we both felt a bit of paranoia about our positive working relationship and felt that it was harder being congenial with each other. Once, when we were both ill, we were “jokingly” accused of making out in the parking garage. I guess Black men and women are so sexual that we are perceived as just not being able to keep our hands off each other. For a time, my supervisor was very stiff and uncomfortable around me because he felt his job as a manager would be in jeopardy because of the amount of attention my performance evaluation received around the company.

These are just three quick examples of how White pressure, perceptions, and interference can change how Blacks are able to interact with each other at work. In many ways, it is like being on a plantation. On the plantation, everything Blacks did—and even thought—was under the control and influence of Whites. Blacks were pitted against each other based on skin-colored, roles, etc. This was all the doing of the slave master (look up Willie Lynch).

We continue to face pressure and heightened scrutiny, when it comes to our working relationships. The same way the White media has expressed the fear that some Blacks will favor Senator Obama based on racial loyalties, some Whites in the workplace have those same fears.

And, unfortunately, some of these people will do anything in their power to act on those fears and to unduly influence the thoughts and actions of managers and workers. This goes a long way in perpetuating some of the many double-standards that Blacks deal with in the workplace, as well as in other venues.

A Black manager shouldn’t have to fear making positive employment decisions for a Black worker because it will be viewed as reverse racism or favoritism. A manager shouldn’t have to fear being stripped of their position because a racist is accusing them of reverse racism. White managers make decisions every day, which are accepted at face value. The same respect should be given to Black managers.

Finally, Blacks in the workplace should be able to work in a positive, peaceful, and productive atmosphere without White assumptions and interference in those relationships. Unfortunately, if Blacks aren’t acting like crabs in a barrel, some people just aren’t satisfied!

When Does Inexperience Stop Whites from Getting a Job?

The post I was going to upload today is on hold until tomorrow because I heard something else about Sen. Obama that lit a fire under me. As you keep reading, you’ll see how I’ve tied this in to the workplace.

Yesterday, Sen. Clinton really began attacking Sen. Obama because of her devastating loss in Iowa. She’s really upped the discussion on his so-called inexperience, saying that people should vet him and see where he’s stood on issues. Then, she shed some crocodile tears in front of a group (largely comprised of female voters) because she worried that while she is ready to “lead from day one [in the White House],” others haven’t really thought it through (referring to Sen. Obama). So, her main argument against Sen. Obama is that he doesn’t have the experience to bring change. But, what really pissed me off is when Sen. Clinton invoked the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. against Sen. Obama. She said a beautiful speech can be inspiring, but it can just be words without the ability to back it up like King did.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to galvanize people of all colors and ages based on his oratory. His inspiration and HOPE for a better way and a better day prompted people to pay more attention to the issues, to vocalize their dissatisfaction with the status quo, to stand in harms way at lunch counters, at protests and marches, etc. His WORDS of hope gave people a desire to—not follow him there (he even said he might not make it there with us!)—but, to keep fighting for a better life, which would be devoid of racism, double-standards and inequities, injustice in the courtrooms, etc.

This is the hope that Sen. Obama is tapping into! Who says he can’t deliver? We just don’t know that!

Not a single person running for President has been president. None of them have experience! They will all be Presidential virgins!! It’s a crap shoot with anyone.

Some Blacks are saying that they really like Sen. Obama, but that Hillary is their “girl” and she’s got the so-called experience. Who says that Sen. Clinton can deliver anything for Americans? Who says she can unite the country? How do you know that?

She’s been running a centrist campaign designed for a general election. She’s not saying anything about doing anything for Black people. She’s just counting on our vote. If she gets in the White House, she’ll be governing in a way that she hopes will ensure her reelection in four years. So, what’s she going to do for Blacks that wouldn’t alienate some of her White constituency down the line? Think about it.

Let’s say that Sen. Obama is inexperienced…

So what!!!

When has inexperience stopped White people from attaining a better position in the workplace? Let’s be real, President of the United States is just the highest job in the country!

Think about all of the unqualified White people you’ve worked with throughout your career.

Now, think about all of the unqualified White people you’ve worked with throughout your career, who’ve held positions of authority over you (directly or indirectly). How’d they get their job?

Was it nepotism? Did friends or family pull some strings?

Was it race-based loyalty? They were given a chance simply because they were White?

Was it their status within the community? Did they come from a well-to-do family or previously hold some esteemed position somewhere? Etc. Etc. Etc.

I believe it was Chris Rock, who said something along the lines of (and I’m paraphrasing), “White people would rather hire their 52nd retarded cousin, then give somebody Black a job!”

Now, don’t get me wrong. Some people are able to rise to the challenge of being unqualified for their job. They are quick studies and are inherently intelligent enough to figure it out. They may have good social skills that allow people to reach out to mentor them and provide guidance as they adjust to their new position. But, the point is they STILL STARTED THE JOB UNQUALIFIED!!!!!

So, I ask, again, for you to think about all of the White workers you’ve encountered, who were:

--unqualified AND racist;

-- unqualified AND unintelligent;

--unqualified and continually incompetent;

--unqualified AND a bully;

--unqualified AND lacking social skills;

--unqualified AND accountable for the results of their actions/blaming others when sh*t blew up in their faces; or

--unqualified AND lazy.

I could go on.

The point is…when does being unqualified stop Whites from attaining AND KEEPING their job? Unqualified Whites are given a chance all the time!

George Bush was not only unqualified, he was a liar! He never intended to come in and be a “uniter and not a divider.” He always had this neo-conservative agenda he planned to execute, which he knew would alienate Democrats and some moderates/independents. He never planned to bring the country together. Evidence of this is how divisive he became after Sept. 11th. He tore this country apart on party lines after a national tragedy.

Bush’s issue wasn’t that he was unqualified. That was the least of his problems. His real issues were his ideology, his policies, his know-it-all attitude, his inability to admit mistakes, his desire to surround himself solely with those of the same mindset, his desire to not hear contrary points of views and strategies, his stubbornness, his desire to isolate himself, his desire to be painted the rosiest of pictures about important issues, and his abrasive attitude and tendency towards cowboyism.

Being President is like being pregnant. You don’t know if you’re qualified until you do it. You don’t know if you’re ready, until you’re there. It’s something you learn as you go along. Period!

Black people, wake up!!! Stop holding other Blacks to standards that you don’t hold Whites to and that many Whites don’t hold themselves to!

A lot of Black people, who are complaining about Sen. Obama’s lack of experience, have other issues with him. I will discuss those issues later this week, in a post about Black people hating on each other and tearing each other down!

In the meantime, I stand by my argument. Why should inexperience stop Sen. Obama? Again, not a single person running for President has been president. None of them have experience! It’s a crap shoot with anyone.

As a Black person, I know what it's like to want a better position and be told (by Whites) that I'm not ready. And, then, being forced to watch some idiot get the in-house promotion. "We're going to promote you next year?" "We're going to send you to training, when the funds come in." I've heard it all before. There's always a catch. Empty promises. Wait! Wait! And, hurry up and wait!! I have to wait, while others don't!

Why not Obama?! Why not now?

He doesn’t have to wait his so-called turn. Who decides when it’s his turn? And, who’s the next White potential presidential nominee who will expect him to step aside, so he or she can run for the office?

Black people, don't confuse Clinton's sense of entitlement with experience!

Decide for yourself!

Education Requirements

One of the easiest ways to keep certain workers in their so-called places is to use education as a qualifier for certain positions—whether or not an advanced degree has anything to do with a person’s ability to perform a job and to be successful. Just look in the classified ads section of the newspaper or perform a job search on a site like Monster.com. Isn’t it amazing how many administrative assistant positions or other low-level or entry level jobs now require a Bachelor’s degree, when for decades they often did not?

In the past, Black workers primarily represented the laborers or we represented the administrative staff at many companies. Historically, many Blacks and other minorities have been denied promotions or have been told we could not transfer into other jobs because we lacked a college degree. Despite this, some Blacks have been able to rise to the level of mid-level management. But, fewer have been able to actually rise to the high-level or executive branches at their companies.

In order to keep the workplace haves as the haves and the have-nots as the have-nots, some supervisors, managers or companies—as a whole—have played the education card to their full advantage. Using education as a justification for refusing to hire, promote, transfer, etc. certain employees is a pretty good bet for a racist supervisor, manager or a company—as a whole—to wager. How many applicants or employees are actually going to officially or legally challenge a workplace claim that they are unqualified for a job because they lack a college degree or an advanced degree?

Furthermore, how many applicants or employees will challenge a claim that they do not have the “right” degree? Yes, there are people who aren’t promoted or hired because they don’t have a Master’s degree…“only” a Bachelor’s. That’s the new workplace game. It involves pushing the education envelope to the point that a Bachelor’s degree is now the basic equivalent of a G.E.D. A Master’s degree is the new Bachelor’s degree (and the minimum required to stay competitive at an ever increasing number of companies). The Ph.D. is the real prize these days. Again, how many workers are going to challenge an employer’s claim that they must have a Master’s degree in order to be promoted or hired for a certain job?

As I’ve written before, I believe the reason for the shift had to do with the fact that more and more Blacks (and Hispanic/Latinos) began to receive college degrees. So, over the years, the ability to stifle certain employees based on education requirements became less effective. And, as a result of increased education by many more minorities, competition during the hiring and promotion process began to become a bit more vigorous. It became tougher to justify why minorities weren’t being placed in certain jobs. The education excuse was watered down to a certain degree. But, that hasn’t stopped some employers from trying, hence the shift in the types of desired degrees for applicants and employees.

Now, I would never argue that employers shouldn’t want the most educated employees they can find. But, the fact of the matter is, many jobs don’t require a college degree. And, anyone who’s spent any amount of time in the workplace can tell you that some of the worst employees have the best education. Receiving a degree (pick a subject) doesn’t give you common sense, doesn’t mean you can work well in teams or lead a team, doesn’t mean you can communicate well (verbally or in writing), doesn't mean you won't violate employment law, and it doesn’t mean you are strategic, forward thinking, a quick learner, etc.

Having a degree doesn’t even mean that you’re extremely knowledgeable in your field—if you were a poor to mediocre student, cheated your way through college or are working outside your area of study. But, as I’ve stated, almost every job these days—no matter how menial or entry level—is requiring a college education. As I was reading up on race and color under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, I came across this:

Educational requirements obviously may be important for certain jobs. For example, graduation from medical school is required to practice medicine. However, employers often impose educational requirements out of their own sense of desirable qualifications. Such requirements may run afoul of Title VII if they have a disparate impact and exceed what is needed to perform the job.

As the Supreme Court stated in one of its earliest interpretations of Title VII: “History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees. Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the commonsense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality.”

And, that's where I stand on the issue. Diplomas shouldn't dictate reality or a person's opportunities in the workplace--not without a LEGITIMATE reason. If your supervisor, manager or other authority at your job is seeking to block your desired career path, deny you a promotion, etc. based on education requirements, please keep in mind that those requirements can be challenged! Two questions you can ask about education requirements are:

1. Is the requirement for a degree out of a business necessity? A business necessity is a practice necessary for safe and efficient organizational operation. For example, an employer can require that an employee have a high school diploma, but that employer must also be able to prove that this is essential to performing the job. Is there some essential element related to a degree that legitimately prevents you from being hired for a specific job, being promoted, being transferred, etc.?

2. Is the requirement for a degree based on job-related factors? Job-relatedness deals with the skills or other qualities that employers say are a requirement for a job. For instance, an employer can legitimately argue that applicants pass a math test in order to get a job working as a cashier because math skills are a job-related necessity for succeeding in that position. Based on the job you are applying for, seeking a promotion for, requesting a transfer to, etc…is their a job-related reason for requiring a degree? Is there a skill gained or other quality only obtained through earning a degree in a specific field (vs. actual experience, for example)? Would the lack of degree automatically prevent you from doing this specific job?

Tangible Employment Actions Aren't Connected to Maintaining Salary or Benefits!

Workplace harassment is defined by law as behavior that, while offensive, is extremely serious because it changes the conditions of your employment or creates a hostile work environment. In regard to the law, for something to change the conditions of your employment, the “something” must be a tangible employment action. A tangible employment action is any significant change in your employment status. It’s an action that has a negative impact on your work environment, job function or career.

A tangible employment action is not simply someone making a threat or giving you lip service. So, if someone’s telling you they’re going to meet you in the parking lot, next to your car, at 3 o’clock—that’s just not going to cut it. Now, if they show up and attack you, then that would be assault. A tangible employment would be:

--a demotion;
--a suspension;
--being stripped of your staff;
--being denied a promotion with no basis;
--receiving a pay cut under false pretenses;
--being transferred to a menial job;
--being transferred to a remote location or being transferred to a hard to reach location (making it difficult to get to and from work) or being isolated from other staff; or
--being subjected to a hostile work environment that is so offensive and persistent that you can’t perform your job.

Some employers try to get all Slick Willie with these actions. So, sometimes they won’t take away an employee’s salary or benefits. Then, they’ll argue that there isn’t a really significant change in job status/no significant penalty. But, that argument doesn’t fly because tangible employment actions aren’t considered based on whether or not an employee retains the same salary or benefits. So, if there is a significant and negative change to your job—even with the retention of pay and benefits—you can argue that you were hit with a tangible employment action.

In my case, I was denied a promotion without basis—except racism and retaliation. I kept my salary and benefits. I filed a complaint with the Office of Human Rights (OHR). My employer responded to OHR that they didn’t change my salary, title, etc. and used that to try to prove that everything was legitimate that happened to me. They didn’t know that I knew they were full of sh*t and that I could argue such based on the fact that I knew that tangible employment actions are not linked to retaining salary, benefits, etc.!

Anyway, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, tangible employment actions:

--occur when a supervisor uses the official powers of the company to take action(s) against an employee;
--are official acts of the company;
--are often documented in company records;
--often have the official approval of the company and its internal processes;
--often cause financial harm; and
--generally, can only be caused by a supervisor or other agent of your company, since a coworker just doesn’t have the power to bring about a significant, negative change in another employee’s employment status or job responsibilities.

So, if you feel you are the wrongful victim of a tangible employment action, PREPARE TO FIGHT BACK!

Tip #1: Maintain a record of any memos or emails you receive that are meant to justify the tangible employment action (e.g., corrective action notice, written warnings, etc.);

Tip #2: Be able to produce your salary history, by maintaining a record of your income with your employer. Show any decrease in pay. Maintain a record of any memos or emails that are meant to justify a salary decrease.

Tip #3: Check the personnel manual! Before such extremes actions were taken against you, check to see if your employer is following its own policies and procedures. If not, point out any violations that may exist.

Tip #4: Find out about past history! Have other employees engaged in the same behavior that you were accused of engaging in or of having the same performance deficiencies that you were accused of having? If so, what happened to those people? Does it differ from actions taken against you? If so, and the consequences for other employees was nonexistent or very minor, you may be able to claim disparate and unequal treatment by your employer.

Tip #5: Keep pushing your side of the story! Don’t let HR or your employer ignore your version of the facts. Document everything, including every relevant conversation you’ve had with HR staff and authorities at your job. List any contradictions in what they say about policies and justifications for the actions. Provide witness statements to support you (e.g., character references or eye witness accounts of events, etc.) and request that HR check with these individuals to confirm your story.

Tip #6: File a grievance or request an internal investigation! Don’t let tangible employment actions slide. If you believe a manager is acting on racist whims by stripping you of your staff or cutting your pay, ask for HR to investigate the matter! It’s your career, fight for it! If the company doesn’t find in your favor, appeal the decision!

Tip #7: Seek legal counsel! Don’t be afraid to consult an attorney in response to a fraudulent tangible employment action.

Tip #8: Remember that your company will usually do everything in its powers to make it appear that the tangible employment action was warranted. This will be their justification for why no violations of Federal law occurred. It is your job to show that the arguments presented by your employer are nothing but pretexts used to hide their true motivations, which might be harassment, discrimination or retaliation. By keeping a log of events that transpired, keeping hard copies of memos, emails, and other documentation that supports your case, and by tracking comments made and actions taken by your supervisor, Human Resources, and corporate management, you can begin to demonstrate that their defense is dishonest and solely meant to cover up the violation of your employee rights. Focus on why their defense is untruthful! That is the burden placed on complainants!

Handling Performance Evaluations - Part III

Continuing with the tips and suggestions for handling performance evaluations, we continue with Tip #7:

Tip #7: If your employer demands you sign a negative performance evaluation, sign your performance evaluation with stipulations/comments. When people get performance reviews they don’t agree with, they’re often never really sure if they should sign the evaluation or not. But, the reality is that signing your review simply means that you’ve read and understood the contents of the performance review. It is not a statement of agreement. But, that doesn’t mean your employer won’t try to play your signing the review in that way.

So, I always suggest that you sign the review—if you must—but, that you write (underneath your signature line), “I have read, but do not agree with the content of this performance evaluation. I will be submitting written documentation to support my opposition to certain aspects of this performance review with the anticipation that the review will be amended.” Or, you can write something along those lines. Write in the borders of the review or write in the white space of the review. But, do not write in the empty space on the back of the review/page, which can be missed, ignored, more easily erased, etc.

The fact of the matter is, your employer can’t take a review (signed in the manner above) and then, later, try to insist that you read your review, understood it, but didn’t make any written or verbal complaints after receiving the official feedback.

Tip # 8: Prepare a formal written response. If you’ve received a negative and/or fraudulent performance evaluation, don’t forget to follow up your disagreement with the content of your review with an official email or memo to your reviewer, supervisor and/or manager. Have as many meetings as necessary to work out any issues. Ask for your review to be amended. Provide documentation to prove that your point of view is correct. Ask coworkers and other managers you’ve worked with for written statements about your performance.

This is best done on the front end of a performance evaluation, as I’ve written in the past. Always give thank you emails or congratulatory emails (sent to you from clients, coworkers, etc.) to your reviewer, supervisor, and/or manager throughout the performance review period. This lets them know you are consistently doing a good job and makes it harder for them to set you up during your actual performance evaluation. If you don’t give positive feedback you’ve received to your supervisor or manager during the year, give him/her a full copy of your kudos in the week or so before they are scheduled to draft performance reviews for their subordinates.

Tip #8: If your supervisor or manager doesn’t want to discuss amending the review, go to Human Resources! Ask for a meeting to discuss your official evaluation. Be prepared to offer solutions to resolve the problem and to correct the performance evaluation. Have a list of people that can support your strong and positive performance during the review period. Point out every area of disagreement with the review. Don’t rely on general complaints or statements. Talk in specifics about what is wrong with the review, why it is wrong, how you can prove the error, and what can/should be done to fix your review.

Tip #9: Request that HR conducts a formal investigation, if the accusations in your performance evaluation are extremely egregious and could result in employment actions, such as a suspension, demotion, salary cut, probation, termination, etc. Prepare your direct and circumstantial evidence of misconduct and/or violations of performance evaluation guidelines or corporate policies and procedures on the part of your reviewer, supervisor, and/or manager. Your official complaint should clearly justify why an investigation is warranted, who should be questioned about the facts, and the reasons you suspect racism or other illegal misconduct (harassment, retaliation, etc.) on the part of your reviewer, supervisor, and/or manager. If HR agrees to investigate, find out the timing of the investigation, who will be interviewed (look for anyone with a conflict of interest, grudge against you, etc.), and learn about the appeal process, should you not get a decision in your favor.

Remember, it’s your performance evaluation. The review will impact your career, your promotion opportunities, your yearly salary increase, bonuses, and could impact your overall treatment at work and, more specifically, within your department.

Don’t let false, harassing or retaliatory comments remain in your performance review. Even if you transfer to another department, that review will follow you throughout your career at the company. Stand up for yourself. Fight for a fair and equitable review process and a truthful review.

Handling Performance Evaluations - Part II

Continuing from yesterday’s post, we’re starting with Tip #4 for handling performance evaluations:

Tip #4: Ask lots of questions! You don’t have to sit in a performance review meeting simply accepting every word that’s said as if you’re sitting in front of the Burning Bush—instead of in front of your supervisor or manager! You have a right to ask for specifics about the statements being made about your performance, you have a right to explain your side of the story in any incident being used against you, and you have a right to ask for the project names and any other information regarding allegations that you are a poor performer or have engaged in negative behaviors, etc.

You can ask questions about anything you want AND your supervisor or manager should have the answer—immediately. They should not have to go talk to anyone to learn specifics. If they have included information on your performance evaluation, they should be able to back it up—on the spot—or there should be conversations about removing the comments from the review. It is not inherently plausible that a supervisor or manager is unable to provide a worker with the specifics about rude, intimidating, unprofessional, or any other negative behavior. Similarly, a supervisor or manager should automatically have the answers regarding missed deadlines, sloppy work/lack of attention to detail or any other performance-related issues.

If your supervisor or manager can’t answer your questions about their critiques of you, you may have a serious problem and you should question who wrote/shaped the content of your review. Ask your supervisor or manager what the issue is regarding their problem with memory recall of your performance or behaviors.

Tip #5: Ask for examples! Don’t allow your supervisor or manager to make blanket statements about you, your work or your attitudes/behaviors. If they want to attack it, they should own it! In other words, if your supervisor or manager wants to make a vague criticism, they should be willing to go as far as they have to in order to prove the criticism is legitimate. On a performance evaluation, every critique and every compliment is used to give your performance evaluation an overall score/grade. That is how many employers decide on an employee’s yearly salary increase, promotion eligibility, etc. Employers look at the overall performance of an employee and they compare it to the overall performance of other similar employees. Every critique adds up—against you!

If you hear something and you don’t know what your supervisor or manager is referring to, ask them, “Can you provide an example of when I allegedly behaved that way?” Get examples because your supervisor or manager will be held to the examples and justifications they’ve provided against you. By asking for examples, it forces your supervisor or manager into a position they may be uncomfortable with, but too bad. Many people don’t like to be questioned, just as a matter of course. Many people believe that their authority, words or commands should be accepted at face value. But, you have a right to ask for examples. Your supervisor or manager took the time to criticize you—in writing—at your yearly review. Therefore, he/she should take the time to defend the content of the review and to make sure you understand where you’ve allegedly gone wrong.

How can you gauge your progress towards correcting negative behaviors or poor performance if you don’t know what the exact problem is because you’ve never been given an example of what you’re doing wrong? How can you improve? You can’t! Without examples, you’re being set up for failure and possibly just set up! Blanket statements can be used to ensure that you are denied a promotion, etc. If you have a racist manager, you can be sure they’ll do whatever they can to make sure they further any goals they have against you—as a minority employee.

Ask for examples. If your supervisor or the company comes up with different “examples” to use against you at a later date, it will make any adjustments to their rationale/story very suspect!

Tip #6: DOCUMENT EVERYTHING!!! If your supervisor or manager says anything strange or makes very harsh critiques of your work performance, behaviors or attitudes—that you believe are completely baseless—write down the exact quotes. I don’t care how hard your supervisor or manager watches you move your pen over your notepad. Write everything down. You may need exact quotes at a later time. Hold your supervisor or manager accountable to everything they’ve said.

In my case, when my supervisor created a mid-year review process, simply to attack me and discriminate against me for another race-based incident at work, she wouldn’t document the content of the fraudulent mid-year review I received. Therefore, I didn’t get a copy of a performance review to sign or keep for my records.

The day before my year-end review, my employers changed the personnel manual to state that supervisors could give “informal” reviews anytime they chose to and they didn’t have to provide a written component for the review. In other words, this justified the lack of documentation for that retaliatory mid-year review. However, I wrote like a fiend. I captured every attack made against me and I submitted a complaint the very next business day. Regardless, the company changed the policy to cover their tracks AND…

My employer only referred to the “2nd half of the review cycle” throughout my year-end review. At no point during my year-end review would either of my supervisors or the HR Representative in attendance talk about the mid-year review. I was told, “That’s old news. We want to move past that.”

Always document what’s being said to you because, even if you do receive written documentation of your performance evaluation, it doesn’t mean that there is consistency with what was written and what you were told. Some supervisors and managers are willing to go out on a limb with what they say, compared to what they write or document. So, document everything!

More tips will be provided tomorrow.

Handling Performance Evaluations - Part I

Sorry for not posting this morning. I lost my Internet connection and couldn’t restore my service before leaving for work. Anyway, here’s today’s post…

In the past, I’ve written numerous posts about negative performance evaluations and I’ve provided some suggestions for performance reviews. The reason why performance evaluations are heavily covered on this blog is because some people in the workplace are very good at hiding the real motivation behind their actions against Black and other minority employees—racism.

Anyone, who is under attack at work, must show that the reasons their employer has given for the "special attention" are nothing more than a pretext to hide their real motivation—active racism. This can’t be stressed enough. It is up to you to point out the lies and inconsistencies being offered by whoever is attacking you on the job.

Performance evaluations are a great way for a racist to hide their motivations for stifling the career of a Black or minority employee, to justify any negative employment actions they’ve taken against a Black or minority employee, and to set the employee up for future employment actions, up to and including termination. Empowered racists in the workplace (those with authority to direct the work of others, to suggest tangible employment actions, such as suspensions and demotions, etc.) heavily rely on their ability to corrupt the legitimate processes, procedures, and policies at a company for their own evil purposes. And, performance evaluations are a favored way of accomplishing many goals, when it comes to harassing, retaliating against or discriminating against Black or other minority workers.

Many racist managers make it very clear, when a minority worker is going to receive a negative review. These managers spend a lot of time laying the groundwork to provide a horrible review to minority workers. So, many Black workers are not surprised to walk into a review and hear all manner of falsehoods, misrepresentations, etc. regarding their performance and behavior during a review year. But, sometimes, there are surprises.

In my case, my supervisor created a mid-year performance evaluation process that was unprecedented. The sole purpose of the review was to retaliate against me to for providing truthful testimony in an investigation involving a Black manager. So, she decided to give me a very negative mid-year review at a company that never gave mid-year reviews. And, she followed it up with a very negative year-end review.

So, don’t make any assumptions going into a performance review meeting. You never know how it will turn out. So, it’s best to prepare for the best or worst case scenarios. Keeping that in mind, here are some tips for handling performance evaluations:

Tip #1: Know the performance evaluation guidelines at your company! If the guidelines aren’t included in the personnel manual, find out if there is other documentation and ask HR for a copy. You have a right to know the standards and criteria that will be used to judge the performance of EVERY employee. Without knowing the standards, you won’t know if you are being treated equitably and fairly, compared to other staff.

Additionally, knowing the guidelines for performance evaluations will help you hear anything “fishy” that’s said and can help you spot violations of corporate policies. For instance, your performance evaluation guidelines may state that recency errors shouldn't negatively impact your review. Therefore, if your supervisor is putting extreme weight on something that happened in the weeks prior to your review AND you never had a problem such as that, your supervisor may be engaging in recency error. This means that your review is being skewed towards the most recent negative behavior you showed as opposed to reflecting the entire review period—as it should!

Tip #2: Ask for a copy of your draft performance evaluation—in advance! Some employers allow employees to see a draft copy of their performance review in order for employees to prepare notes and questions for their performance review meeting. If policy allows you to see an advance copy of your review, make sure you do! If your supervisor doesn’t mention this, ask for a copy of your review. You don’t have to provide any other reason for seeing the review, except that you are entitled to a copy of the review (assuming it is in the policy/guidelines) and you want to be prepared for your review meeting.

Tip #3: If you don’t get an advance copy of your review, ask for a copy of your review AT THE START OF YOUR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MEETING! Many managers like to read the review to employees and provide them with a copy of the review after the review meeting. However, a person can read a review anyway they want to make it sound one way or another. Your supervisor can read you a watered down version of the review. Or, your supervisor might skip several key and highly critical sentences contained the review. This might be for malicious reasons or this might be done because your supervisor doesn’t like confrontation, etc. But, you don’t know what the review says unless you read it yourself.

Remember, you are usually expected to sign the review before you leave the performance evaluation meeting. There’s not a scenario where you’re asked to take the review home, think about the content, sign it, and return it to your boss. You shouldn’t have to skim the review at the end of the meeting because your supervisor allegedly read the entire thing to you. I think we all know that supervisors usually want us to rush through the reading of the review and to just sign and get out of their office, so they can do the next review or just be done with the process. But, you should be able to completely read the review—AND ASK QUESTIONS. And, there shouldn’t be an issue with you reading the review as your supervisor is discussing it/reading it aloud. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Many more tips will be provided tomorrow. Stay tuned…

Lax Performance Evaluation Standards and Guidelines

One of the easiest ways to fulfill a race-related agenda against an employee of color is to use the performance evaluation process against that person. What makes this such a good mechanism for targeting employees is that the content of evaluations, as I’ve mentioned before, is often not reviewed for accuracy by anyone outside the departmental structure.

Human Resources staff are not reading each individual review and questioning accusations or negative content. So, supervisors and managers often feel pretty confident that they can get away with formally trumping up false allegations against Black employees.

When White supervisors or managers use this tactic against Black employees, they often try to disguise the true motivation, which is race-related (e.g., to discriminate against or punish the Black employee, etc.). What they often try to do is to take racially-charged accusations and turn them into race-neutral accusations. For instance, instead of using the stereotype of saying that a Black person is angry and defensive or has a chip on his/her shoulder, etc., the White supervisor or manager will say that the Black person can’t take constructive criticism or is “unapproachable.” The reason is that these types of accusations don’t carry any racial weight with them and they sound like the types of critiques that any employee might receive.

These tactics can make it hard to prove discrimination because they don’t sound racially-loaded and could potentially be true. So, you have to reveal the motives, as I keep reminding you, behind all of the accusations being made about you.

Not only that, you should look at challenging your company’s performance evaluation process, if you believe that your employer uses lax and corruptible standards for evaluating employee performance. Here are some things to consider and argue, regarding performance evaluations at your company:

-- Does everyone get a mid-year review and/or year-end review? If every employee at your company doesn’t receive a mid-year review or a year-end review, the entire performance evaluation process is unfair and inequitable from the start. Every employee should be held to company-wide standards, as well as job specific standards. Therefore, if one employee is being held to the letter of the performance review guidelines and company-mandated standards for performance, EVERY employee must be held to those same standards or disparate treatment/discrimination is applicable. Additionally, if some staff are getting mid-year reviews, they are at an advantage because they know where they stand regarding their performance and they know what they need to improve before the end of the performance review period. EVERY employee should be treated and evaluated in the same way. Find out if some employees are getting mid-year encouragement and advice on their work performance, while others are not.

-- What standards guide the reviewers that administer performance evaluations? For instance, what training are reviewers given before they are allowed to evaluate employees? And, what reviewer errors are they warned against, if any? For instance, are they warned against recency error? Recency error means a reviewer gives a biased performance review based on something RECENT that took place, instead of based on the employee’s entire performance for the review period. This is very damaging, when the recent thing/allegation is negative.

Or, maybe there was subjective judgment error, which means that too much weight may have been placed on an incident (positive or negative). Subjective judgment error can slant a performance evaluation too far in either direction. Reviewers use subjective judgment errors intentionally, when they want to prop up their favorite staff. So, they’ll blow the most routine duties into life-saving, money-saving feats of glory in order to justify a big salary increase or promotion for one of their peons. Subjective judgment error can be used to deny a promotion or significant increase to a targeted/disliked employee. So, a reviewer may use minor incidents or fabricated incidents to ensure that a person is stifled, frustrated, punished, etc. for reasons that may not truly exist, except to serve the agenda of the reviewer.

These are just 2 types of reviewer errors that reviewers should be cautioned against prior to evaluating employees. So, find out if there were any training or reviewer cautions provided by your employer.

-- If there aren’t any official standards/criteria for conducting performance reviews and evaluating employees—there should be basic standards, even for “informal” reviews—how can performance reviews be administered in a fair and equitable manner? Every supervisor, manager, etc. must be using the same criteria for company-wide standards and job specific requirements. This is the only way to ensure equitable treatment and comparable evaluation of employees. And, this prevents some supervisors and managers from propping up desired staff based on lax standards that others don’t benefit from.

-- Can your employer produce a written copy of company-wide standards and job specific/job level/job classification expectations of performance?

-- Can your employer identify when these standards were shared with employees, so they’d know how they would be evaluated?

-- Can your employer identify when official standards were shared with reviewers?

-- Who at the company ensures that the standards are upheld by reviewers? What are the checks and balances for the performance review process?

The reason this is a valid question, is that at my former employer, big problems developed because White managers were targeting Black staff with negative performance evaluations that contained surprise content and false allegations that only served to ensure that these Black employees would not be promoted and would not receive a significant salary increase.

After 2 external investigations were launched, suddenly this employer changed its review process because they alleged that supervisors were ACTING ON THEIR OWN in preparing malicious reviews or inaccurate performance reviews for employees. And, they stated that they suddenly realized that far too many supervisors were not the most knowledgeable about what their subordinates were actually doing. So, instead of having supervisors go to staff or other project managers to find out how their subordinates performed the new policy was that the project manager, etc. that worked with an employee most frequently would be the person identified as the employee’s primary reviewer. A secondary reviewer would also be put in place, to add another layer of REAL input.

While we worked at the company, nothing was done, we were told the process was fair, and we were both told that none of the reviewers assigned to us would be removed. The company forced us to get reviews from supervisors that were engaged in illegal misconduct and that demonstrated clear race-related issues with us.

So, again, a question you might ask is: what are the checks and balances involved in the review process?