Moral objection to involvement in a non-departmental task

Question

I'm a data analyst at my company.

I'm currently roped into an analytics task where I'm setting the criteria for other employees to receive quarterly bonuses.

I have two key objections to my involvement.

1) I don't work in HR. I'm in business analytics. The fact that I can see all of these other employees' salaries and benefits packages really bothers me. I don't think I should have access to it at all, and I feel uncomfortable judging the value of these employees to the business without being able to evaluate their work directly.

2) The executive's process for assigning bonus acquisition is pretty scummy. Q4 2016 was pretty productive, so more people hit bonus targets than they'd like (47% vs. their desired 33%). They want me to fudge the criteria going forward so that bonus attainment will be less and they can hoard more cash like dragons.

As an analyst, that last part really sticks in my craw. It goes against the discipline to fudge data to fit the desired conclusion rather than let the performance of hard-working professionals speak for itself. The employees shouldn't be punished for being productive by raising the ceiling even higher so that 2 year employees are expected to produce at the level of 10+ year employees.

I'm grudgingly moving forward on the task, but I'm not sure how hard I should push back on my objections. I've made it known that I don't feel comfortable having this degree of access to employee information, but I've kept my judgement about the goalpost-moving to myself.

My questions:

Am I right in thinking that I shouldn't have access to other employees' financial information?

How can I frame my objection to the goalpost-moving in a way that sounds less judgmental of my superiors?

Ultimately, I don't expect the executive to follow the guidance of an analyst, but I feel like I need to raise a formal objection to my unwilling participation in this task.

EDIT: At no point (at my job or in the question) have I indicated that I won't do it, or that me not liking it precludes me from having to complete a task that I'm assigned. Obviously, I'll do it, and to the same quality that I perform any job task. I feel that subjective evaluation of fully objective performance measure to be a morally objectionable tactic, particularly when revenue is soaring.

Answer 1

Am I right in thinking that I shouldn't have access to other employees' financial information?

In general, companies do want to limit access to employees' financial information. Clearly though there are roles and projects that require such access. It sounds like this is one of them.

If your job is analytics and the task you have been assigned involves accessing other employee's financial information, you can think what you like but still have to do what you are told.

You could (and probably should) ask that you be given a dataset with the individual employees' names and identifiers redacted. That way you'll be analyzing the data without involving individuals. You'll know the what without knowing the who.

How can I frame my objection to the goalpost-moving in a way that sounds less judgmental of my superiors?

You can start by avoiding words like "scummy", "fudge", "hoard", "goalpost-moving" and "my unwilling participation".

Instead, focus on what your superiors hope to achieve and how you think they can best get there.

Or you could request a meeting with the board and say that you feel it is unfair to "change the criteria going forward so that bonus attainment will be less". Perhaps you can propose an alternative process that will still let the company have it's desired 33% bonus attainment rate. It's often good to have an alternative when you express a complaint.

The company I recently worked at has a performance appraisal system tied to annual salary increases. The department I managed was given a budget for the increases prior to the appraisals and could not be adjusted. Thus, the dispersal of increases was a zero-sum game. If I had all terrific workers on my team, I couldn't given them all terrific increases. I had to give less to one in order to be able to give more to another. Or I had to give everyone an "average" raise.

I argued unsuccessfully for several years that is was unfair and that the budget should be spread across more than one (small) department.

I didn't have to be personally happy about it, but I still had to follow orders and stay within my budget.

In your case it doesn't sound like you are being asked to judge people individually. Instead, it sounds like you are being tasked with coming up with a "passing grade" such that 33% of people attain their bonus. And it sounds like someone (with an analytics role) would have to do that anyway.

If you really have a moral objection, you can argue your point. But in the end you need to decide if this is sufficiently morally objectionable that you would quit or not.

Answer 2

It is a job related task if it was assigned to you. You are an analyst and they need an analyst.

As an IT person you are likely to come in contact with sensitive information. Most people get used to ignoring it.

Refusing this task or objecting to it would impact you career negatively.

Answer 3

Probably too late to help OP, but I want to leave this here for others in a similar jam.

I strongly recommend that you do not fudge any data. IANAL, but as I understand it such an action has legal implications for you, and probably breaks Sarbanes-Oxley rules. It is particularly wrong for them to ask you to do this for them. If you are cornered, I would keep a second set of the records - make sure if you do this you strip out personal information.

There may be a way out for you. Instead of fudging the data, ask them to alter their criteria for getting a bonus. They can do it, unless they had everyone sign a contract on how their bonus will be determined. Point out that this was is less risky for them. After Enron, falsifying financial data got to be serious business.