Bad annual review following disagreement with VP

Question

I took a team transfer 5 months ago, and it was agreed with my current manager that I would work for the next generation of products. Then, 2 months ago this manager announced he is leaving.

To prepare for the transition, the VP R&D organized a meeting with our team except for the manager. He qualified my manager quitting "not a great loss". My colleague was announced as the manager responsible for the next-gen product (not team manager), as we would try to hire a new one. He said he did not like the previous policy to monopolize product information with the manager and that the whole team should have a general view of the project.

Fast forward one week, I was not invited for a meeting concerning the product, but I went anyway (it is acceptable in my company). There, I learnt some new details about the product and added a couple of suggestions.

I scheduled a conversation with the VP to discuss being invited to the these meetings and where I could offer my expertise. He totally agreed with me, asked if I was interested in the team manager position, which I said not for the moment and praised my professional skills.

In the following three weeks, I was not invited to two meetings of the product. Just before the second meeting, I talked to my manager and he reported to "not know why I was not invited". The meeting description clearly stated: "(feel free to add people who might be interested)".

I went to the meeting anyway, and as soon as the VP saw me arriving he stated "maybe we should invite more people from the team". To which I replied, "yes, I think one colleague would be interested, maybe we should invite our team (which would be to add 2 people)".

And then the discussion went downhill, with statements from the VP "we cannot invite everybody", "some people need to work". I said that myself was not invited to the meeting, and if that is how it works, I would leave. He tried to say "no", but I left anyway.

I had a meeting with my manager after this discussion, and he explained how his management works. I countered exemplifying other projects of same complexity having at least two people invited to all meetings (excluding the manager), and that I think I could be this second person. He agreed, and I am invited to all meetings up to now. I thought the discussion was closed.

This week, he is conducting annual reviews of performance prior to his departure. He praised my technical skills but graded my interaction with my colleagues as 2/5, saying that I have to be careful on how to address them, no further details. Close colleagues said it is probably due to the incident with him and the VP. It is important to mention that once signed, the review has a legal value in my country.

I have the following options:

• Consider it my fault, don't add new remarks from my side and sign it.

• Talk to the manager and say that I find the remark untimely, and that I thought everything was sorted out after the last conversation I had with him. However, that would mean that his remarks and grading would have to be reviewed.

• Add my side of the facts in the employee's remarks part, but that would require re-discussing everything with my manager, maybe with the VP present. It might be stressful and counter-productive.

• Postponing the final signed version to next year, using the present one as a draft. I don't really like this option, because it would mean everything will be re-discussed with the new manager. What do you think?

Answer 1

The most relevant parts of the question here seem to be these two paragraphs:

I went to the meeting anyway, and as soon as the VP saw me arriving he stated "maybe we should invite more people from the team". To which I replied, "yes, I think one colleague would be interested, maybe we should invite our team (which would be to add 2 people)".

This seems like all started well - the VP saw that you were arriving, and it probably jogged his memory that you'd asked to be invited in the past. He followed up and you guys had a discussion about who you should invite. This is all good!

And then the discussion went downhill, with statements from the VP "we cannot invite everybody", "some people need to work". I said that myself was not invited to the meeting, and if that is how it works, I would leave. He tried to say "no", but I left anyway

...and this is where it all went wrong. It seems like you suggested a few too many people for the VPs liking - and that's fine! He disagreed with what you were saying, and the correct response there would have been one of "sure, that makes sense - where do you think we should draw the line on who to invite?"

But instead of that, you seemed to get angry at the VP, made a snappy remark that you were going to walk out if you didn't get your way (about who to invite), and despite being told to stay, you left anyway.

Forgive me if I've taken a harsher view than the reality here, but it seems you quickly overreacted, started an argument and stormed out of a meeting creating an issue where there wasn't one (and not just at anyone, at the VP.)

Also:

I thought everything was sorted out after the last conversation I had with him.

Good, chances are it is sorted. But it doesn't take away from the fact you made a mistake, and so it's likely that's what's being reflected in your review. You can't expect to apologise for poor performance in a particular area, then expect to be rated top marks on that area because you've apologised.

Unless anything has been written down that's blatantly false, my advice would be to just accept the grading as it is, apologise, and move on.

Answer 2

Ask for clarification. You don't know for sure that the 2 refers to this specific incident. Management needs to provide examples and give you specific feedback about what you need to change.

If the low rating is in fact based on the single incident with the VP, their response will seem weak and be easier to contest.