By all means, R-and-D should do the appraisals.

Performance Evaluations cover three areas of interest: goals, performance, and potential. The first step is setting goals for the upcoming appraisal period. R-and-D did this back at the beginning of the rating period. The performance and potential portions of the performance review cover how well the rated employee accomplished the goals and estimating what is the employee's untapped potential for additional responsibility and value to the company. Only R-and-D (who we assume has been observing and mentoring his employees through out the period) could in all fairness write valid appraisals. Who else would really know what the employees actually did? Who else should know the people well enough to asses their future value as employees?

You are correct that "setting goals for the upcoming appraisal period" is "the most important part of any performance appraisal." However, R-and-D would not be setting new goals. His replacement would set the goals for the upcoming appraisal period as part of beginning his tenure as leader.

... and keep copies of everything you write (i.e. the appraisals plus any notes) plus keep a written diary of the process.

Because any company that would require you to "adjust" performance appraisals is a company than cannot be trusted as far as you can spit.

Cover your "bottom" as you back out the door.

But I agree with Bob - as long as they pay you, you should continue to do as good a job as you can.

-S

I really can't agree with any of the advice given here, for the following reasons:

1). Anyone, and I mean anyone at all, would be justified in asking the following question: "R-and-D has been terminated. Is their stated opinion suspect, even though it is nominally a professional opinion based upon factual data, because they are unhappy about being terminated?". Note that this does not mean that terminated means fired either. It could be something much less negative than that (including laid off, outsourced, tech change, strategy change, etc.).

2). The employer asked R-and-D to change his evaluation. Since R-and-D clearly does not agree with these changes, and the changes are substantive, that is an unethical request. The fact that R-and-D is even considering making these changes is problematic.

There are a couple of roads to the same destination. The destination is a flat No to the evaluation change.

1). R-and-D can pretend to work on changing the evaluations, but you know, it's so busy around here, and the position needs to be wrapped up properly, he never really gets around to it. Stall until the clock runs out.

2). Confront the employer. State your position clearly and leave no room interpretation. If the evaluation changes, even one word, one comma, one spelling mistake, then R-and-D's name comes off the evaluation. Whoever changes the evaluation, they own it. Their name goes on it and they take 100% responsibility.

Anything less, and R-and-D leaves a big stink bomb behind him/her. They will never know when, or if, it will blow up. The damage to R-and-D's career and personal life could be immense.

Bob, your suggestion about 'talk with the manager' is really the critical step - letting the manager know the pros and cons of R&D doing appraisals is key. It may be that the manager was thinking is just only about documenting past performance when saying 'do the appraisal'. (For some managers, that is all an appraisal is - documenting the past)

I think I'd like to elaborate upon my earlier posting.

If ever there was a time for R&D to lift their nose from the grindstone and examine the Big Picture, this is it!

R&D is probably going to go back on the job market after 17 years. At this point, R&D needs to behave in an ethically spotless manner, in order to keep his appeal to any future employer. While it was never a good idea to leave a mess behind at any previous position, in the Internet age it's just that much easier to find out the "dirt" on any given job applicant.

However let's just say, for the sake of argument, that R&D retires, or otherwise does not go back on the hunt for a new job. It's time to think of his legacy. Who would he rather be known as? The schmuck who stabbed everyone in the back, when R&D came under a little bit of pressure from an employer who had no real leverage against him? Or as the Stand-Up individual who did the right thing when tested?

These are not trivial questions. R&D has to live with his own conscience, long after this employer is just a historical footnote in his life.

The employer has already made an ethical transgression here. R&D can basically tell them to get stuffed on that basis alone. Any notion of teamwork, loyalty, friendship, responsibility, save those noble aspirations for those who deserve them.

We're seeing some issues here, very clearly. But only one side. The facts:

1) R&D has been given notice of his/her layoff.
2) R&D has been asked to do performance reviews of his staff prior to departure.
3) Management and R&D are in disagreement about the ratings of R&D's employees.

What we don't know is:

1) Has R&D inflated the ratings inappropriately?
2) Is this a "forced ranking" process and the company requires managers to fit their rankings into the bell curve?
3) Is the company going to scape goat R&D after he / she has left the company and the ratings are delivered to employees? ("Gosh, he really jammed you up before he left. Well, too bad, it is after the increases have been decided so you'll have to live with R&D's ratings -- perhaps you can take this up with him.")

For number 1, R&D can fight all he wants, but the company is going to make his life miserable. It may be this issue that also precipitated the layoff. Frankly, if the company disagrees, they should just circular file the ratings and start over with the new manager.

For number 2, I've had this situation when my manager horse-traded my people without my input. I had reviews prepared and was told to down-rate them from "Exceeds" to "Meets". (The net difference in money? Zero. The net difference in employee engagement? Huge. Do you feel better about a C+ or a B-?) When the company is struggling, this is common -- "We raised the bar." Again, R&D is going to fight a losing battle.

For number 3, well, that will be hard to prove until after the fact. For this reason, R&D should ensure that HR is in the loop on what he is being asked to do and they should try to act as an impartial third party on his behalf.

The advice to "keep a copy" may be problematical. While I would agree that is a reasonable approach in principle, it may be a huge problem in terms of confidentiality. In general, HR-related records are considered confidential and a former employee who retains copies of these records may be sued for stealing company property.

This is not a good situation for R&D. Refusing to comply with the employer's requirements may be considered insubordination and R&D may lose a significant severance package. At the same time, R&D has his / her personal integrity at stake, as well as his / her reputation with the team.

The best solution is probably to get HR involved as neutral third parties.