What are the warning Signs of a Toxic Boss?

Introduction

A toxic boss is someone who misuses his position and the power that this position provides him. Psychological studies focused on work situations indicate that good relationships between colleagues lead to better productivity and more progress. Despite these studies, however, there are still enough bosses who use methods and behavior that are detrimental to their employees and companies.

These kind of ‘leaders’ carry a sort of feudal heritage with them. They have an autocratic idea of power. That is why they do not worry about their behavior, however harmful it may be. They see the company or organization as a machine that must function properly. Their subordinates are only gears in that machine. Toxic bosses are more focused on the results than the process.

Researchers discover time and time again that positive leadership leads to greater efficiency on the work floor. Recently coaching leadership has come to the fore and in the long run, democratic and horizontal models generate more respect and thus productivity among employees. An authentic leader exerts his moral authority above all. He is not dependent on coercion or punishment to ensure that his employees are committed to the business objectives. Instead, he motivates and rewards them. This encourages a sense of belonging and motivates employees to be more involved in their work.

Below I will discuss some of the main warning signs that these toxic bosses exhibit.

A toxic boss is arrogant

Toxic bosses believe that their power makes them better than everyone else. It does not matter how they ended up in their position, they always feel superior. Moreover, they believe that they have the right to treat others as less important, just because they are the boss.

This arrogance manifests itself in body language, their way of talking and their style. Toxic bosses want to be intimidating. They interpret the fear of their employees as something positive. Their arrogance is always more related to uncertainty and lack of confidence than true superiority.

I always called this management by fear, although I did not exactly understand why. Now I do.

He does not know how to listen or communicate

One of the most obvious signs of a ‘poisonous’ boss is how difficult it is for him to listen to others. These types of bosses believe that listening to their employees makes them unjustly important. They assume that if they listen to their subordinates, they will take their power over them.

Toxic bosses also do not know how to communicate. In fact, their instructions can be unnecessarily complicated. They do this on purpose to make an impression or even to intimidate their employees. A poisonous boss speaks in absolute terms in an attempt to emphasize that he has the last word about everything. It is common that poisonous bosses do not appreciate what others say. They can do this with indifference or by doubting their employees in a disrespectful way.

He is controlling and not flexible

Toxic bosses do not understand the difference between maintaining and controlling. They are also unable to see the difference between guidance and orders. They do not trust the people with whom they work. That is why they think that micro-management is the best strategy. They assume that their job is to control and punish what they find inappropriate behavior. Find out more about a micro-managing boss here.

The toxic boss is yelling at his employees

Toxic bosses are also not at all flexible. They see situations completely in black and white. They believe that strength is the same as inflexibility, and if they are not extremely strict, people will see them as weak. That is why you can not question their orders and they hardly explain their ideas. Their employees have to do everything exactly as they say, otherwise they will be punished.

He does not know how to deal with conflicts

These types of bosses see anger as something favorable. They believe that bad moods and irritability are signs of a serious and responsible employee. So they interpret these qualities as expressions of dedication and solidity. That is why they often sound annoyed when they give orders or ‘solve’ problems at work by shouting. They think they have the right to give their employees a scolding.

If they have a problem with an employee, it is their solution to impose new orders or to give a kind of punishment. It does not matter to them whether the people they work with feel uncomfortable. If other people do not follow the rules, they get angry and they see these people as weak. A poisonous boss creates a tense and oppressed working environment. He thinks that this will encourage his employees to work harder. However, quite the opposite is true.

He rejects the initiative of others

Taking the initiative is a sign of autonomy, strength and skill. That is why a toxic boss feels threatened by an employee who takes the initiative. They may even think that these types of workers are going beyond their limits and challenge the authority. Toxic bosses reject everyone with ideas for innovation or improvement.

And in their performance assessment they will still claim that you are not pro-active!

He can not deal with time

Good time management is essential to guide staff and prevent problems. One of the things that makes someone a bad boss is bad time management. This includes poor planning and prioritization of activities.

Bad time management creates a chaotic workplace. Employees often have to finish their work in record time. Or there will be times when they have nothing to do. In these cases, the workplace feels unstable and disorganized. As a result, employees feel stressed and tense.

He does not know what his employees need

Bad bosses have no idea what their employees need. In fact, they have no interest in finding out. They believe that personal things are inappropriate or even irrelevant in the workplace. They see the personal life of people as an obstacle to getting work done.

The toxic boss does not respect his employees

A toxic boss believes that the personal needs of his employees have nothing to do with his responsibilities. Because they see everything in black and white, they assume that personal problems are just an excuse that employees use to justify a missed day or incomplete work. Toxic bosses find it very difficult to see their employees as ‘complete’ people.

Employment law around the world is trying to protect workers, but the reality is that there are many bosses who push the boundaries of what is legal. They subtly ignore the rights of their employees and hide their offensive attitude behind the unpredictability of human relationships.

Final thoughts

A toxic boss depends mainly on fear. This is the tool that a toxic boss uses to ensure that his employees adhere to business goals. Although this model works in the short term, it will lead to a stagnating organization in the long term. In addition, employees will feel frustrated and ready to leave as soon as the opportunity arises. A toxic boss is harmful to the organization as a whole.

Toxic bosses are in abundance in times of crisis. They know that they can cross the border and that most of their employees will not say anything about it because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Nevertheless, all employees must know their rights and be aware that they can say something in a respectful way if they feel that they are being treated unfairly.

In my next article I will inform you how to deal with a toxic boss, which you can access by clicking here.

Types of Leadership Styles – Which one Works Best?

Introduction

You have a manager and he has his style, then you have another manager with a completely different style. Confusing sometimes. In this article I am going to help you distinguishing between different types of leadership styles. Nowadays there are three main leadership styles: charismatic/transforming, democratic and autocratic, with each having sub-divisions. I am giving a short description of the characteristics of each style, discuss the advantages and disadvantages and indicate which one works best. At the end I will give you my number one recommendation in case you want to become your own boss.

The charismatic/transforming styles

Lately a great deal of attention was paid to the impact of the so-called transforming management styles. This showed that the following things are characteristic:

  • Charisma or the behaviour of leaders, where they have a warm atmosphere, convincing, take position and appeal to employees on an emotional level.
  • Inspiring motivation including through the publication of an inspiring vision, including values and team values.
  • Intellectual stimulation, challenging beliefs and procedures.
  • Individual consideration, listening to and meeting needs, coaching and mentoring.

The importance of meaningful work and the focus on control of the employee i.e. how and when the work is done.  According to a recent study these styles correlate most with aspects such as employee satisfaction, motivation of the employees and assessed effectiveness of the leader.

I personally could not agree more. You would be lucky to encounter one of these two following styles.

Inspiring 

This is the most ‘dominant’ of the charismatic styles. The leader who uses this style inspires and encourages others through his self-assured interaction style, courage and clear messages. Often this attitude is referred to in the literature as “managerial courage”. Typical key concepts are:

  • communicating clearly about the vision
  • if the situation requires them, giving clear instructions
  • taking self-assured action, and daring to go against the flow if necessary
  • deciding issues when performance or organizational problems pop up
  • decisively lead people and conversations

Coaching

This is clearly the most preferred style by the employees, because this style is characterised by the attention paid to employees. A manager who uses this style invests time and energy in her/his employees. Typical key concepts are:

  • involving the employees in the work and giving them the opportunity to take initiatives
  • always having a listening ear
  • making time for employees (talking about work, about their development)
  • understanding and mediating in conflicts

The democratic styles

These styles are sometimes described as “management by exception – active”: the leader watches from a distance; he/she monitors performance and only takes (corrective) action if necessary. This is only possible if standards and rules have been set before. In terms of satisfaction with managerial and employee satisfaction in general, one of these styles always scores well, especially the participatory style. Often this style gets the second best score in this area after the coaching style.

Participative 

This is the most appreciated of the democratic styles. For example, the manager who uses this style has an employee’s say in decisions or builds decisions together. Empowerment is often also mentioned as a characteristic of this style: this means giving self-control and autonomy to the employees. Some see it as an encouraging, sometimes compelling employees to take responsibility. This sense of responsibility must grow thanks to the application of this leadership style.

Typical key concepts for this style are:

  • having modesty, calmth and patience
  • trusting employees
  • asking questions and listening to opinions of employees
  • involving employees in decisions
  • giving their staff room in the performance of their duties

Passive 

Overall, it can be said that this concerns nonleadership or the avoidance of his/her responsibilities as a manager.

In scientific research these styles are mostly referred to as “passive leadership”, “laissez-faire” or “management by exception – passive”. A manager will only intervene at the moment that the problems are already serious.

Withdrawn 

This style is strongly characterised by personal and professional absence and indecision. Employees will soon think that the manager has no ambition and a lack of interest. This style leads to demotivation and employees who feel lost.

The following core concepts are part of this style:

  • letting tensions and problems last too long
  • leaving employees to their fate, 
  • not giving enough challenges
  • giving too little time and guidance to his/her employees

Distrustful 

The person who uses this style intervenes too late in the event of conflicts in the group or operational problems and is often suspicious of the motives of employees. The leader who uses this style hesitates and is unclear about what he/she wants and the direction to follow.

The following core concepts are part of this style:

  • having unclear positions, withholding important information and hiding intentions
  • assessing others quickly and mostly negatively
  • being indecisive and anxious

 

The autocratic styles

Managers who use these styles mainly hope that they can enforce obedience (“compliance”) from their employees. If this happens occasionally, this is part of the “normal” behavioural repertoire, but if this happens frequently, this is problematic. Various studies into stress show that these styles result in a huge social cost, both for the companies themselves due to much workforce movements and high absenteeism, but also for society as a whole, due to the costs of health care for work-related sickness absence.

Those who use this style communicate in a hard way, without showing much understanding for the other party. There are a lot of unilateral rules/requirements imposed and demanded.

Recently research has been conducted into the effects of these leadership styles.It can be seen that reference is made to “destructive leadership” or “toxic leadership”, because these styles can result in dictatorial behaviour, fraud, narcissism, exploitation, etc. I have described narcissistic bosses in this article.

Unfortunately, there are still many executives who hold the popular but scientifically incorrect belief that this style produces good results, especially in crisis situations. I would say that if you have these style long enough, you will end up in a crisis situation anyway.

Directive 

A manager who uses this style often strives (in the eyes of others) to achieve personal success in a competitive manner. They monitor and correct their employees in an active way and often refer to standards and rules. The following core concepts are part of this style:

  • striving to achieve her/his objective
  • being very result-oriented
  • working on their own careers; focused on (personal) success
  • wanting obedience / having high demands

Authoritarian 

People answering questionnaires will almost without exception say they detest these style. They perform things in a one-sided and unpleasant way. There is anger in all kinds of gradations, like irritation, annoyance, impatience. The following core concepts are part of this style:

  • domination and dictation 
  • not tolerance for any responses
  • threatening with sanctions
  • being unexpectedly cool and hard
  • often expressing annoyance and anger

I would call this management style decisively: management by fear. Not far off of modern slavery, ok, but without the whips.

Final thoughts + Recommendation

I personally prefer the coaching, inspiring or participative styles of leadership and I wish anybody would have this kind of management. Unfortunately, I see the rest as, maybe not bad for the company, but certainly not very good or even bad for the employee. I would not flourish under passive, distrustful and withdrawn leadership.

If you happen to be under autocratic style leadership, you better take immediate action in order to avoid complete demotivation, stress and even health problems. Modern slavery is present, but should not be tolerated at all. It can destroy people’s lifes.

If you are interested in becoming your own boss, away from the corporate jungle, then there is a way out. Join the best internet business support group in the world: Wealthy Affiliate (WA). Have a website in minutes, find your passions and have your product niche, scam free, reasonably priced and build your own business.  See my full review of WA here.

Which type of boss do you have or did you get rid of? Let us know by filling in the comment box.

 

 

Why Performance Reviews are not Important anymore

Introduction

Time-consuming, rigid, bureaucratic, deadly for motivation: the classic evaluation meeting with annual objectives has had its best time. Many employees are not in favour of an annual formal evaluation. Young people in particular are of the opinion that this system benefits them hardly anything. This is the conclusion of a recent study by the agency Wakefield Research among a thousand American employees of up to 35 years old. Formal evaluations would, according to the study, have a negative impact on motivation and productivity. From personal experience I myself can fully underline this.

There is consensus now that companies are increasingly opting for a different approach. We have changed the entire evaluation process. Flexibility and coaching are now paramount.  Nevertheless, to keep evaluating in a better way is useful: employees are entitled to and have a need for feedback, positive and negative. How else are you going to improve?

How difficult can it be? I mean, telling your staff what you expect from them, then keeping an eye on them and re-direct where and when necessary. In my mind this should be a continuous process, not a one time only. Read on and I will inform you why traditional performance reviews are not important anymore.

Origin of performance appraisal

As a manager you may not think about it every day , but there was a time when there were no performance interviews with employees at all. Only at the end of the seventies of the last century the dialogue about functioning became commonplace.

At the moment you would think it unimaginable, but in the first instance the performance interview was mainly a task of the personnel officer. It was not until the 1990s that we moved this task ‘to the line’ and managers who were deployed for this. That it moved to the line manager is very logical as he or she is directly involved with you.

What is a performance appraisal? 

The dictionary defines it as: periodically speaking conversation between employee and supervisor about the functioning of the first.

However, in Wikipedia you will find a more diversified definition:

“A performance interview is a dialogue in which the mutual functioning of the employee and his supervisor is discussed. The conversation is two-sided; the

manager asks questions about the functioning of the employee and the employee asks equal questions to his supervisor. The relationships between manager and employee in the interview are equal. “

This view is the classic conception of a performance interview. A very brief turn: everyone over the age of fifty who asks you about the meaning of performance appraisal will probably look at it this way. Personnel management is not an exact science, as it turns out. If we agree with each other in mathematics that 1 + 1 makes 2 , then that’s it. In the humanities sciences you can easily find ten different books that all have a slightly different meaning to the same concept of performance appraisal.

Disadvantages

They can be contrary to cultures. For example, against a desired corporate culture, department culture or professional culture.

The system depends on the execution of others in organisations. Not every manager has the same amount of know-how to professionally conduct performance interviews. This ensures quality difference and comparison problems.

The system is susceptible to improper use (ethics) by executives in organisations to settle personal conflict with employee.

The system can be abused by organizations for, for example, reorganization plans and outplacement.

Poor performance appraisals can be detrimental to profitability. (decrease in productivity, employee loyalty and customer orientation).

The systems can undesirably influence the behaviour of employees because employees behave excessively towards the “control variables” and do not perform other obvious ways of working less well. The phenomenon of functioning can not be clarified and covered 100%.

The systems can politically form power centers in organizations. For example, it may happen that personnel matters, with respect to other business departments, exert an above-average influence on, for example, performance management and makes the involvement of other departments in strategic or policy matters more difficult.

Appraising your staff one time and at the end of the year is simply not enough. If an employee is not functioning in one aspect, why wait unitl the end of the year to tell?

In case you are asking why I am not listing any advantages, here is my answer from a long time personal experience in the work force: there are advantages, but they are all for the benefit of management. I have personally not seen any advantages for the employees and I think this evidently bureaucratic system was specifically designed for the bigger companies.

It is time to say goodbye to the performance interview

Many companies have meanwhile gotten rid of these horrible performance appraisals and opted for the more result-oriented and personal approach.

Globalisation ensures that we look at the way in which international organisations have arranged their dealings with employees, and that involves a decent dose of business to us that we are used to from time immemorial. In addition, there is also a whole host of recent research that shows conclusively that making concrete result agreements with employees not only produces enormous performance improvement, but also simply gives employees a better footage.

In the new evaluation or growth process for employees, with so-called check-in interviews, the process is less fixed and it puts more initiative in the employee. The coaching aspect has become more important. There are still objectives, but there is more room for personal interpretation with more dialogue and less administration. The intention is that every conversation starts with a white sheet. As a company, you also have to be able to look at the performance of our employees more broadly.

One of the spearheads in the new system is to commemorate and split up the current role of ‘coach’. You want to distinguish between the evaluation of the performance of the employees on the one hand and their development on the other. You can now entrust the evaluation of the performance to a people manager, usually a team or department manager. He or she follows the employees in their work and performance and guides them in everything needed to make it happen, in the team and for the customer. 

Coach as career counsellor

A coach, on the other hand, has a different role. He or she offers the employees a listening ear and gives them the opportunity to tell them what their expectations are about development, where their interests and passions lie and what questions they are struggling with. The coach helps the workers to develop and seize the opportunities that present themselves at the right time. A coach is actually someone who offers career counselling and creates an environment where it is safe to put all topics on the table in full openness. 

More feedback moments

The young population of employees is clearly demanding to extend the formal feedback interviews to more frequent, informal, on-the-job feedback moments. This real time development can best be described as a mindset aimed at the continuous development of both themselves and others, where every work situation is an opportunity to grow in the job. Supported by a snapshot application, employees can ask managers to assess them on the basis of the core competences that you define for each level. The target is for employees to request about six of these formal feedback moments each year, supplemented by many informal contacts. 

Conclusion

The traditional performance appraisal fortunately is on the way out. Many companies have now seen that a one-time per year employee assessment does not produce the right outcome. Management understands that a more personal, continuous, result-oriented approach is by far the better option.

You, dear reader, please share your experiences on this forum and let us know what is happening in your particular company. Moreover, I would welcome any questions you any have on this article or other boss related issues. This whole sight has been designed in order to help you in matters with your bosses, yes even ultimately defeat them.

In the world of internet, leaving your boss and  becoming your own boss is getting more feasible. I myself became an internet entrepreneur, so can you. If you are interested in the world’s best program to help you achieving this, please read my personal view of this unique opportunity here. You will not be disappointed!

 

 

 

Performance Appraisals – Why People Hate Them

Introduction

We should get rid of performance appraisals.

Nowhere does negative or constructive criticism appear more frequently than in performance reviews of employees. The prevailing theory is that criticism, which invariably is part of the performance review, will improve the performance appraisalsemployee’s performance, and in addition the employee will positively welcome it. Nothing can be further from the truth.

In my 36 years of being an employee I have seen nothing constructive about an annual pay and performance review.

I am quoting Dr. Culbert – Professor of Management who is very clear in his criticism:

To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It’s a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork.

The alleged primary purpose of performance reviews is to enlighten subordinates about what they should be doing better or differently. But I see the primary purpose quite differently. I see it as intimidation aimed at preserving the boss’s authority and power advantage. Such intimidation is unnecessary, though: The boss has the power with or without the performance review.

I have personally come across a lot of negatives and I am giving you my take below, again greatly inspired by Dr. Culbert, you can read his essay here. I will also give you a perfect solution to avoid these issues.

Yearly cycle

From my own extensive experience I know that most performance appraisals take place once a year and at the end of a year or the beginning of next year. You just see bosses get more and more uncomfortable as the time comes and more often than not performance appraisalsthese reviews will only be finished in January, leaving the employee in total uncertainty about their new salary until the end of that month.

Why is this evaluation only done once and that late? If the review needs to indicate where the employee lacks in capability or needs to enhance the performance, why wait until the end of the year to tell them, when it would be too late to remedy anything?

Is it not in the interest of the company to supply clearness to people involved at the time needed? Oh, this person is not performing up to standard, but I will wait until the end of the year to tell him/her. Yea, right!

Different mindsets

What do you think when you enter into a yearly review? I bet it is about how big a salary raise you could get and your career development mostly and maybe about how you can do even better and you hope you can do this in a constructive evaluation with your boss. You think that everything you do or say will affect your pay rise and you are prepared to negotiate about it.performance appraisals

However, your boss comes to the table with a different mindset. He knows he can only give you so much or even has to tell you to wait until next year. He wants to talk about your relationships with other people and how you interact with them. He has missed opportunities in mind and spent time finding out where you lack in skills.

Knowing all this any constructive discussion has been virtually killed-off beforehand! This is exactly how I experienced having a try at a mutual dialogue and found it was utterly impossible. Now I know exactly why, but right then it was more of a nuisance, with the predicted outcome of me asking myself: why am I wasting my time here!

Indeed I have been at a point, where I told my boss just to skip the whole circus, not knowing that my boss would be in some (minor) trouble. He then “threatened” to send me to HR or to put a warning in my personal file. Imagine what good this will do to your relationship!

No link between review and pay

People go the performance reviews having the illusion that right there and then or as a result of the outcome of this review, their salary increases will be determined and that anything is negotiable. From personal experience I know this to be far from the truth. Whether you will get an increase in pay or not has already been predetermined by your bosses directed by the company’s policies and market expectations for the next year(s).

Your boss has then to come up with a credible story which ultimately leads to a salary change/promotion or not. To support your boss in coming up with a credible story, a performance appraisal is a great instrument, as it will give your boss almost all the fire power he needs. Believe me when I am saying that a boss can come up with a thousand reasons not to promote you or not to increase your salary, even if you are entitled to both.

What defense do you have if your boss says that you are not pro-active or not enough pro-active? I will tell you straight away: none whatsoever! Or this one: HR policy is that we have to keep promotions company wide at a minimum this year, we will see next year again. You will go to HR? Ha, ha, good luck! Read here why HR probably will not help.

Objectiveness not there

All companies claim that performance appraisals have to be or even will be objective observations by the boss. If this is true, then given time, my reviews from two different bosses would be in agreement on the big points of my evaluations and only slightly differ on minor points. In reality, when two different bosses evaluate you even in objectivenessconsecutive years, more often than not they contradict each other in many ways.

I would submit that an evaluation given by one boss in two consecutive months may greatly differ, depending on the person’s mood and or what happened in the time just before the review.

I have seen that people got a favorable review just because they had a successful undertaking just before the review, never mind their under par performances in the beginning of the year. As a matter of fact, I have watched people use this phenomenon, by doing the bare minimum in the first part of the year, then increasing their efforts greatly in the time prior to the appraisal.

What about this beauty! Your boss tells you that he has a certain opinion about you, which usually is not very favorable and may not be his real opinion, but to support his lame and weak view he claims that he has had conversations with other people in your workplace, who told him the same. And no, he cannot reveal who he has been talking to, they are to remain anonymous. In my thinking this is the most coward attitude I have ever encountered.

Use measurements with same standards?

No two people are the same. Every individual comes with his or hers personal characteristics, flaws, competencies, capabilities and other features. Some need more support than others; some ask for guidance, some want to work by themselves. Like when having more than two children of your own, every single individual still needs a unique approach.performance appraisals

The performance appraisal does not make this distinction between people as in all cases it will be the same dull summary of points against which different people’s performance will be evaluated. It asserts that people have a certain competence and does not focus on what employees are competent to do. This structure supports the boss in looking at similar entities rather than unique individuals.

Teamwork at risk

Many bosses seem to have a much distorted view of teamwork: his people are the team and he will tell them exactly what to do. Thus the boss has effectively placed him or herself outside the team. A performance review amplifies this status by giving the boss all the power and an employee is at the mercy of their boss’s mental state at the time.

Instead of asking how they can improve their teamwork, the boss focuses on how that particular individual can improve his or her activities!

A performance review is the boss’s one-sided view of the employee’s performance and whether his performance was under par or not present, does not get into the equation. If an organization can run effectively only on well established one-on-one relationships between bosses and each individual in their staff, then performance appraisals undermine these relationships hugely.

Employees will never feel they can speak their minds to their bosses, consequently leaving bosses in the dark about their staff.

The corporate improvement myth

Isn’t it said that this yearly carousel of evaluating, reviewing and rating is to contribute to enhanced employee’s performances and thus a better corporate performance? Well, what I have experienced myself and saw in others around me: oh my god, this circus again, they know already what pay rise they can or cannot give you and are now performance appraisalsdirecting your appraisal towards its predetermined outcome anyway.

I know what effect this has on people’s spirit, motivation and they might even become cynical. What I also saw is that your initially highly rated boss conveniently and willingly follows this procedure, goes by the book, hides behind the rules and is just left like a mere manager or less (certainly not a leader!). As a consequence of that people start losing their faith and or respect for their boss or even the company.

I could not help but conclude that by creating such an atmosphere, you really are not going to get the best out of your employees. Their attitude might become one of ‘yeah right’ when your boss comes with another of his great ideas to move forward.

Instead of creating a nice working environment, where people love to go to everyday, they have initiated one of hidden agendas, people working for themselves, doing their jobs like robots and doing just those things that will help them survive, barely.

I do not think that a company, any company, will benefit from this kind of “working” attitude.

Conclusion

For those of you that have never experienced anything untoward with these processes, this might just be a warning to stay alert for the future, because not all bosses and companies are the same. I can assure you that there are people out there who never encountered these problems.

For the majority that unfortunately have been faced with one or more of the facts as mentioned above, I would say that you will certainly not be the only one out there nor the last ones. On the positive side, many other people like myself, have expressed their criticism on the process of these reviews. Some companies have already re-thought their management of yearly pay rises and how to do this in the interest of all parties, however, most other firms need more convincing. As with all good things they will take time, time which you may not have!

Remember that there is an excellent alternative out of this misery and that is to start working for yourself and make sure you get the benefits of your works and not somebody else! Just start working to be your own boss, enlist for a free trial in the best program available, which is Wealthy Affiliate. See my personal review here.